Cibrar;^  of  Che  Cheolocjical  ^eminar^ 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 

FROM  THE  LIBRARY  OF  THE 
REVEREND  WILLIAM  PARK  ARMSTRONG.  D.D. 

.4.  &7^Z. 


yw 


^ij/Ai^-s^e^^^rl^i^^ 


^Ji^fAi 


I^i 


/^/^.  ^:S^'^/>^ 


THE  HEBREW   FEASTS. 


BOOKS    BY    PROFESSOR    GREEN. 


The  Argument  of  the  Book  of  Job  Unfolded.    i2mo,  $1.75. 

'*  That  ancient  composition,  so  marvellous  in  beauty  and  so  rich  in  philoso« 
phy,  is  here  treated  in  a  thoroughly  analytical  manner,  and  new  depths  and 
grander  proportions  of  the  divine  original  portrayed.  It  is  a  book  to  stimulate 
research . " — Methodist  Recorder. 

Moses  and  tne  Prophets.     i2mo,  cloth,  $..uo. 

"  It  has  impressed  me  as  one  of  the  most  thorough  and  conclusive  pieces  of 
apologetics  that  has  been  composed  for  a  long  time.  The  critic  confines  him- 
self to  the  positions  laid  down  by  Smith,  and,  without  being  diverted  by  any 
side  issues  or  bringing  in  any  other  views  of  other  theorists,  replies  to  those 
positions  in  a  style  that  carries  conviction." — Professor  W.  G.  T.  Shedd,  D.D, 


THE    NEWTON   LECTURES   FOR    1885. 


THE  HEBREW  FEASTS 


IN 


THEIR   RELATION   TO 


RECENT    CRITICAL     HYPOTHESES 


CONCERNING 


THE   PENTATEUCH. 


WILLIAM    HENRY    GREEN, 

Professor  in  Princeton  Theological  Seminary, 


NEW  YORK : 

HURST  &  COMPANY,  Publishers, 

122  Nassau  Street. 


COPYRIGHT,    1885,   BY 
EOBERT    CARTER   AND    BROTHEM. 


COPTRIGHT,   1891, 

BT    HURST    k    COMPANY. 


ARGTLE  PRKSS, 

Book  TJiinnfactnrors, 

266-2G7  Cheri-y  St.,  N.  Y. 


Through  the  liberality  of  the  Hon.  J.  Warren 
Merrill,  A.M.,  three  courses  of  lectures  upon  topics 
selected  by  the  Faculty  of  the  Newton  Theological 
Institution  have  been  delivered  to  the  students  during 
the  last  three  years  by  teachers  connected  with  other 
seminaries.  In  each  of  the  first  two  courses  different 
topics  were  discussed  by  several  eminent  lecturers. 
The  series  now  published  is  the  only  full  course  yet 
given  by  a  single  lecturer  upon  one  theme.  It  is 
hoped  that  in  process  of  time  there  will  be  many 
other  volumes  of  "  Newton  Lectures  "  offered  to  the 

Christian  public. 

Alvah  Hovey, 

President  Newton  Theological  Institution. 
Newton  Centre,  Aug.  5, 1885. 


PREFACE 


The  new  departure  in  Old  Testament  Criticism 
represented  by  Reuss,  Wellhausen  and  Kuenen  rests 
upon  the  conception  that  the  rehgious  institutions  of 
Israel,  as  these  are  exhibited  in  the  Pentateuch,  are 
not  the  product  of  one  mind  or  of  one  age,  but  are  the 
growth  of  successive  ages ;  that  the  laws  in  which 
they  are  enacted,  and  which  have  been  commonly 
attributed  to  Moses,  are  really  composite,  and  are 
divisible  into  distinct  strata,  which  are  referable  to 
widely  separated  periods,  and  that  the  growth  of 
these  institutions  can  be  traced  in  the  laws  which  or- 
dain them  from  their  primitive  simplicity  to  those 
more  complicated  forms  which  they  ultimately  as- 
sume. And  it  is  further  claimed  that  this  result, 
which  is  reached  by  an  analysis  of  the  laws,  is  veri- 
fied by  the  statements  of  the  history,  provided  the 
history  itself  is  first  subjected  to  proper  critical  treat- 
ment, and  its  earlier  and  later  elements  are  correctly 
discriminated.  Wellhausen's  "  Prolegomena  to  the 
History  of  Israel,"  which  has  recently  been  issued  in 
an  English  dress,  is  a  most  elaborate  attempt  to  es- 
tablish his  revolutionary  ideas  by  appeals  to  the  leg- 
islation and  the  history  in  regard  to  the  Place  of 
Worship,  the  Sacrifices,  the  Sacred  Feasts,  and  the 
Priesthood.     The  purpose  of  these  lectures,  delivered 

(3) 


4  PREFACE, 

at  Newton  Theological  Institution  at  the  request  of 
its  honored  Faculty,  and  now  published  at  their  in- 
stance, is  to  test  this  critical  hypothesis  by  an  exami 
nation  of  the  Hebrew  Feasts.  Two  reasons  led  to  the 
selection  of  this  point  for  more  particular  discussion. 
First,  the  Feasts  are  alleged  to  be  one  of  its  main 
props,  and  to  afford  the  clearest  proof  that  the  various 
Pentateuchal  laws  belong  to  different  eras  and  repre- 
sent distinct  stages  in  the  religious  life  of  the  people. 
And  secondly,  while  the  critical  views  respecting  the 
Sanctuary,  the  Sacrifices,  and  the  Priesthood  have 
been  vigorously  and  successfully  assailed,  proportion- 
ate prominence  has  not  been  given  by  the  opponents 
of  the  hypothesis  to  the  matter  of  the  Feasts. 

I  take  this  opportunity  to  return  my  acknowledg- 
ments to  the  generous  friend  of  sacred  learning  who 
made  provision  for  these  lectures,  and  to  the  Faculty 
of  the  institution,  who  honored  me  by  the  appoint- 
ment to  deliver  them,  and  whose  kindly  courtesies 
made  my  brief  stay  in  Newton  most  delightful. 

W.  Henry  Green. 

Princeton,  N.  J.,  Augusts,  1885. 


CONTENTS 


I.  THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS  IN  GENERAL. 

Page  II. 

Its  originators,  il  ;  the  previous  Literary  Analysis,  its  grounds  and 
results,  12  ;  its  fallacies  and  defects,  14  ;  the  new  method  and  its 
proposed  test,  i6  ;  the  three  Codes,  17  ;  the^V  characteristics  and 
the  periods  to  which  they  are  assigned,  18  ;  variance  with  Scrip- 
tural statements,  27 ;  causes  of  its  popularity,  28  ;  the  Codes  do 
not  belong  to  distinct  periods,  30  ;  their  differences  otherwise  ac 
counted  for,  33  ;  alleged  correspondence  with  separate  periods 
unfounded,  34  ;  other  falsities  and  fallacies,  38  ;  not  a  mere  ques- 
tion  of  order,  but  one  of  vital  consequence,  40. 

II.  THE   HISTORY  OF  OPINION  RESPECTING  THE 

HEBREW  FEASTS. 

Page  45. 

The  several  feast  laws,  45,  form  one  complete  and  consistent 
scheme,  46 ;  not  an  accidental  conglomerate,  50  ;  judgment  of 
Ewald,  50;  alleged  discrepancies,  51  ;  views  of  Rationalists,  De 
Wette,  52;  Comparative  Religion,  Christian  Fathers,  Maimonides, 
Marsham,  Spencer,  55  ;  Witsius,  57  ;  F.  C.  Baur,  58  ;  Literary 
Criticism,  61  ;  Gramberg,  63  ;  Von  Bohlen,  65  ;  Stahelin,  66 ; 
Hitzig,  67  ;  Bertheau,  68  ;  Ewald,  69  ;  Von  Lengerke,  Hupfeld, 
72 ;  Knobel,  75  ;  Dillmann,  77  ;  Archaeology,  De  Wette,  Winer, 
79  ;  Symbolism,  Bahr,  79  ;  result  of  this  inquiry,  80. 

III.   THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CHAPTERS  12,  13. 

Page  83. 

Critical  assertions,  83  ;  preliminary  observations,  85  ;  the  narrative 
in  Exodus  the  key  of  the  whole  position,  87  ;  Eichhorn,  Dillmann, 

(5) 


O  CONTENTS. 

89  ;  Vater,  Gramberg,  90  ;  George,  Stahelin,  Vatke,  92  ;  diversity 
in  regard  to  12  :  24-27,  95  ;  Noldeke,  Kayser,  98  ;  Wellhausen, 
Dillmann,  99  ;  the  partition  factitious,  100 ;  alleged  inconsisten- 
cies n  the  laws  of  these  chapters,  103  ;  or  between  the  laws  and 
the  narrative,  107  ;  or  in  the  narrative  itself,  1 10  ;  alleged  want 
of  connection,  114;  repetitions,  118. 

IV.    THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CHAPTERS  13,  13. 

{Contmtied.) 
Page  125. 

Objections  from  diction  and  style,  125  ;  preliminary  remarks,  126  ; 
alleged  criteria  of  the  Elohist  and  Jehovist,  127  ;  legal  phrases, 
131  ;  other  Elohistic  words  and  expressions,  133  ;  month  Abib, 
142  ;  Jehovistic  expressions,  144  ;  verdict  of  Graf,  148  ;  argu- 
ment from  the  substantial  agreement  of  critics,  148  ;  the  narra- 
tive in  Exodus  a  credible  and  true  history,  155  ;  objections  an- 
swered, 159. 

V.    THE  FEAST  LAWS  AND  THE  PASSOVER. 

Page  165. 

What  laws  are  referred  respectively  to  the  Jehovist,  Elohist  and 
Deuteronomist,  165  ;  relation  of  Ex.  23  and  34,  166  ;  Lev.  23  in 
harmony  with  and  related  to  the  preceding,  171  ;  Num.  28,  29, 
177  ;  Num.  9  and  Deut.  16,  178  ;  alleged  development  of  the 
Passover,  combination  with  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,  180  ; 
change  from  agricultural  to  historical,  186  ;  Passover  not  derived 
from  offering  of  firstlings,  190  ;  Unleavened  Bread  not  a  harvest 
feast,  195  ;  difficulty  in  regard  to  first-fruits,  202. 

VI.    THE  V ASSO^f ER.—{Coniimied.) 
Page  205. 

Time  of  the  feast,  205  ;  Hitzig's  notion,  206  ;  change  from  unde- 
fined period  to  a  fixed  day,  208  ;  prolongation  of  the  term, 
George  and  Wellhausen,  210  ;  Deut.  16  :  7,  214  ;  changes  in  the 
ritual,  217  ;  roasting  the  flesh,  218  ;  public  substituted  for  private 
sacrifices,  219  ;  place  of  celebration,  221  ;  no  diversity  in  the 
laws,  223  ;  the  history,  224 ;  the  prophets,  225  ;  Josiah's  Pass- 
over, 228  ;  no  development  discoverable,  231  ;  Ezekiel,  233  ; 
conclusion,  238. 


CONTENTS.  7 

VII.    THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS. 

Page  243. 

Its  names,  243  ;  Wellhausen  on  Ex.  34  :  22,  244 ;  Hitzig's  view,  245; 
duration  of  the  feast,  247 ;  septenary  cycle,  247  ;  Ewald's 
scheme,  248  ;  liable  to  objections,  250  ;  Hupfeld's  view,  253  ;  im- 
proved by  Riehm,  256  ;  development  claimed,  256  ;  no  added 
historical  association,  257  ;  no  change  in  time,  258  ;  "  the  mor- 
row after  the  Sabbath,"  George,  260  ;  Hitzig,  264 ;  Kayser, 
Knobel,  Kurtz,  265  ;  Wellhausen,  Dillmann,  266 ;  the  traditional 
view  correct,  267;  Kliefoth,  Hupfeld,  270;  no  change  in  dura 
tion,  271  ;. ritual,  272  ;  or  place  of  observance,  273  ;  silence  of 
the  history,  273  ;  George's  confession,  275. 

VIII.    THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 

Page  279. 

[ts  design,  279 ;  culmination  of  the  festal  series,  280  ;  oftenest 
mentioned  in  the  history,  281  ;  alleged  development,  282  ;  in 
character  and  design,  284  ;  in  its  time  and  duration,  286  ;  the 
Atsereth,  291  ;  mode  of  observance,  292  ;  critical  analysis  of 
Lev.  23,  Wellhausen,  Kayser,  293  ;  Reuss,  294  ;  Dillmann,  unity 
of  the  chapter,  295  ;  Wellhausen's  assertion  of  interpolations, 
296  ;  Neh.  8  :  15,  17,  300  ;  from  individual  to  national  sacrifices, 
302  ;  the  latter  do  not  chill  devotion,  nor  engender  formality,  303  ; 
from  local  sanctuaries  to  one  central  place  of  worship,  305  ;  Well- 
hausen's treatment  of  the  history,  306 ;  Shiloh,  308  ;  Solomon's 
Temple,  309  ;  high  places,  312  ;  Bethel,  313  ;  only  one  pilgrimage 
feast  in  early  times,  314  ;  the  Psalms  know  but  one  sanctuary, 
315  ;  the  Prophets,  316  ;  evasions,  316  ;  patriarchal  narratives 
318  ;  the  ark,  319  ;  fallacy  of  the  circle,  321. 


I. 


THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS 
IN  GENERAL. 


THE  HEBREW  FEASTS. 


I. 

THE    WELLHAUSEN    HYPOTHESIS    IN 
GENERAL. 

IT  was  in  1866  (just  nineteen  years  ago)  that  Karl 
Heinrich  Graf  published  his  now  famous  treatise 
on  the  "  Historical  Books  of  the  Old  Testament." 
From  this  properly  dates  the  hypothesis  of  the  post- 
exilic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  has  of  late 
attracted  so  much  attention,  as  further  elaborated 
by  Kuenen,  Kayser,  and  others,  and  especially  by 
Julius  Wellhausen,  who  is  now  the  acknowledged 
leader  of  the  school.  A  like  view  had  been  pro- 
pounded by  Vatke  in  his  "  Religion  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament," and  by  George  in  his  "  Older  Jev/ish  Feasts" 
in  1835;  and  it  is  also  claimed  by  Prof.  Reuss,  of 
Strassburg,  that  he  had  broached  the  same  in  his 
lectures  since  1833  ;  but  at  that  time  it  gained  no 
adherents,  and  was  universally  regarded  as  extrava- 
gant and  paradoxical. 

The  wayJi^LdJbeenpre£aTed_Xor  the  new  hypothesis 
by,  the  literary  analysis  which__had  previously  beeiL 
undertaken  of  the  Pentateuch.  This  took  its  rise 
from  the  suggestion  that  the  remarkahle_alt£niatiQrL- 

(II) 


12  THE   WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS. 

of  divine  names Jn  successive  sections  in  the  book  of 
Genesis  is  referable  to  distinct  writers,  each  of  whom 
was  characterized  by  the  constant  or  predominant  use 
of  Qne  favorite  term  for  God.  It  was  hence  assumed 
that  Genesis  was  originally  compiled  from  two  or 
more  independent  treatises,  into  which  it  might  again 
by  the  application  of  critical  rules  be  freshly  decom- 
posed. And  the  same  process  was  further  carried 
with  more  or  less  success  through  the  entire  Penta- 
teuch and  even  beyond  it.  This  hypothesis  was  sup- 
posed to  find  abundant  confirmation  in  the  alleged 
fact  that  when  the  treatises  now  blended  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch were  properly  sundered,  they  were  found  to 
bear  all  the  marks  of  separate  authorship,  each  being 
in  a  measure  complete  in  itself,  each  having  its  own 
peculiar  diction  and  style,  its  plan  and  purpose,  its 
range  of  ideas  and  conception  of  the  history  and  of 
the  various  actors  in  it,  and  betraying  more  or  less 
distinctly  the  circumstances  and  the  tendencies  under 
which  it  was  composed.  The  microscopic  com- 
parisons which  were  instituted  between  these  newly 
discovered  treatises,  brought  to  light  the  most  as- 
tounding and  pervading  divergences  between  them, 
discrepant  accounts  of  the  same  transaction,  variant 
representations  of  the  life  and  manners  and  partic- 
ularly of  the  religious  usages  of  the  same  periods 
and  the  same  men,  so  that  it  was  plain  that  they  had 
severally  followed  quite  diverse  traditions.  The  final 
Redactor,  to  whom  the  Pentateuch  owes  its  present 
form,  had  evidently  sought  to  harmonize  his  conflict- 
ing sources  and  to  cover  up  their  disagreements;  but 
the   critical  process  by  removing  his  late   additions 


THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS. 


13 


left  these  original  treatises  in  bald  and  sharp  antago 
nism  and  revealed  the  underlying  discordance  in  what 
seems  to  the  ordinary  reader  a  continuous  and  con- 
sistent narrative. 

Conclusions  were  hence  drawn  unfavorable  to  the 
truthfulness  and  accuracy  of  one  or  other  of  these 
primary  sources  and  perhaps  of  both ;  until  the  Pen- 
tateuch, from  being  a  homogeneous  record  of  events 
and  institutions  accredited  by  the  authority  and  in- 
spiration of  Moses,  was  reduced  to  a  compilation,  by 
no  one  knows  who,  of  legends  gathered  from  diverse 
and  contradictory  sources  originating  no  one  knows 
how.  The  extent  to  which  this  .destrjjctive  process 
was  carried,  varied  with  the  taste  or  fancy  of  -the 
critic.  In  general  the  work  of  demolition  was  car- 
ried on  with  an  unsparing  hand.  And  such  of 
the  divisive  critics  as  were  most  disposed  to  rever- 
ence the  Pentateuch  and  to  defend  its  sacredness  and 
its  truth  found  the  ground  slipping  away  beneath 
their  feet  in  spite  of  their  utmost  endeavors.  The 
hypothesis  proved  even  to  the  soundest  and  best  of 
its  adherents  a  steep  incline  down  which  they  inevi- 
tably slid,  destitute  of  any  firm  support,  to  lower  and 
still  lower  views  of  this  portion  at  least  of  God's  in- 
spired word. 

The  several  ages  of  the  various  documents,  from 
which  it  was  held  that  the  Pentateuch  had  been  made 
up,  were  eagerly  discussed.  Conjectures  ranged  ad 
libitum  through  the  centuries  without  reaching  any 
clear  or  well-sustained  result.  But  amid  all  diversities 
on  other  points  it  was  generally  agreed  that  Deuter^ 
onomy  was  the  capping  stone  of  the  Pentateuchal 


14  THE   IVELIJIAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS. 

^difice^and  that  it  must  have  been  added  at  or  before 
tiLe-time.when  "  tlie  hook  of  the  law  "  was  found  in 
the  temple  in  the  reign  of  JosialL 

Such  in  brief  was  the  state  of  things  in  the  critical 
world,  when  the  new  hypothesis  of  Reuss,  Graf  and 
Wellhausen  appeared  upon  the  scene.  Symptoms  of 
weariness  and  discontent  had  begun  to  manifest  them- 
selves at  the  dreary  monotony  of  a  literary  criticism 
with  its  infinitesimal  and  subtle  distinctions,  which 
assumed  to  settle  all  questions  of  style  and  author-"^ 
ship  by  the  mechanical  application  of  the  rule  and 
the  compass,  which  paraded  its  long  drawn  out  lists 
of  words  and  phrases  the  use  of  any  one  of  which  in- 
fallibly determined  the  author  not  merely  of  para- 
graphs or  sections,  but  of  single  sentences,  clauses  and 
even  words,  which  may  thus  be  torn  out  of  their  con- 
nection and  assigned  to  some  foreign  context  and  in 
a  sense  quite  different  from  that  which  they  must  bear, 
where  they  actually  appear.  The  arbitrary  character  of 
the  whole  proceeding  was  apparent ;  and  no  less  that 
the  assumed  diversities  of  style  were  largely  fictitious. 
That  the  poetic  words  should  belong  to  that  docu- 
ment to  which  the  poetic  passages  wer^  regularly  as- 
signed; that  given  words  and  phrases  should  not 
appear  in  passages  in  which  there  is  no  occasion  for 
their  employment ;  that  different  expressions  should 
be  used  in  relation  to  the  same  thing  in  different  con- 
nections where  the  shade  of  thought  to  be  conveyed 
is  varied ;  that  classes  of  words  which  are  akin  in 
thought  or  usage  should  be  regularly  found  in  com- 
bination ;  that  a  partition  conducted  on  the  assump- 
tion that  certain  words  and  phrases  characterize  one 


THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS,  15 

writer  and  accordingly  all  sections,  paragraphs  or  sen- 
tences  in  which  they  appear  must  be  assigned  to  him, 
while  those  containing  certain  other  words  and  phrases 
must,  with  like  regularity,  be  assigned  to  the  other 
writer,  should  result  in  precisely  the  division  which 
the  critic  has  undertaken  to  make ; — all  this  surely  is 
not  surprising,  and  requires  no  such  extraordinary 
hypothesis  to  account  for  it,  as  the  critics  would  have 
us  suppose.  For  with  all  the  appearance  of  pains- 
taking and  scientific  caution  and  rigorous  accuracy 
with  which  their  reasoning  is  conducted,  the  impos- 
ing accumulation  of  details  adduced  in  support  of 
diversity  of  authorship  is  to  a  great  extent  entirely 
irrelevant,  and  of  no  force  whatever  for  the  purpose 
for  which  it  is  urged.  The  indefinite  multiplication 
of  airy  nothings  does  not  amount  to  anything  sub- 
stantial after  all.  We  may  be  excused  if  we  hesitate 
to  commit  ourselves  without  reserve  to  the  guidance 
of  those  whose  arguments  are  so  often  unreliable,  or 
to  confide  implicitly  in  the  strength  and  durability  of 
a  structure  built  so  largely  of  hay  and  stubble. 

A  further^difficulty  with  the  literary  criticism  of 
the  Pentateuch  was  the  absence  of  anv-external  crir. 
t£rion  by  which  to  test  the  truth  and  accuracy  of__its_, 
results.  Its  text  was  parcelled  among  the  various 
writers  who  were  said  to  have  had  a  share  in  its  com- 
position, and  confident  assertions  were  made  as  to 
the  period  when  these  writers  lived  and  the  principles 
by  which  they  were  actuated.  But  there  was  no 
trace  whatever  of  their  existence  apart  from  the  lit- 
erary phenomena  of  the  Pentateuch  itself,  upon  whiclj 
all  the  argumentation  of  the  critics  was  based.  There 


1 6  THE  WELL  HA  USEN  H  YPO  THESIS. 

was  no  extraneous  proof  to  establish  the  objective  re* 
ality  of  the  critics*  conclusions  or  to  do  away  with  the 
suspicion  that  they  may  only  have  been  building 
castles  in  the  air. 

The  new  hypotliesis  was  skilfully  framed  to  supply 
these  deficiencies  in  its  predecessor.  In  the  first 
place  it  is  based  upon  a.  different  method ;  and 
secondly,  it  offers  an  external  test  of  the.coxrectness 
of  its,  results.  Its  method  is  to  trace  the  growth  of 
la^iLa^^and  institutions.  The  principle  upon  which  it 
is  based  is  that  of  development,  which  is  founded  in 
the  nature  of  man  and  must  have  had  the  same  ap- 
plication in  Israel  as  among  other  nations.  The 
simpler  and  more  natural  form  must  have  preceded 
the  more  complex  and  recondite.  Different- enact- 
ments rejatiiig  to  the  same  subject  belong  to  distinct 
periods  of  time  and  are  to  be  arranged  in  the  order 
of  their  advancement  from  small  beginnings  to  more 
fully  developed  forms.  The  correctness  of  the  result 
is  to  be  tested  by  an  appeal  to  history.  The  suc- 
cessive stages  of  the  institutions  of  Israel,  as  these 
can  be  traced  in  the  Pentateuchal  laws,  can  be  recog- 
nized afresh  in  the  course  of  their  history.  They  are, 
it  is  claimed,  in  precise  correspondence  with  what  the 
historians  and  the  prophets  show  did  actually  exist 
at  different  periods  among  the  people.  The  conclu- 
sions deduced  from  the  legislation  find  thus  their 
voucher  in  the  history ;  and  the  date_Qf^  any  given_ 
portion  of  theLlegislation  is  determined  by  its_coin;;_ 
cfdcnceui^th  the.-State  of  things  at  some  known__ 
epoch. 

The  so-called  Mosaic  law  according  to  Wellhausen 


THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS, 


17 


forms  the__s_tarting-point  for  the  history  of  modern 
Judaism,  but  not  of  ancient  Israel.  It  has  been  in- 
vested with  undisputed  authority  since  the  Baby- 
lonish exile ;  but  the  entire  history  prior  to  that  is 
not  only  at  variance  with  its  most  express  and  solemn 
provisions,  but  is  such  as  to  render  it  evident  that  it 
was  altogether  unknown.  There  are  three  ^clearly 
distinguishable  bodies  of  law  in  the  Pentateuch.  The 
first  is  in  Exodus,  ch.  20-24,  and  is  technically  calledLthe 
BookjDf  the  Covenant.  The  second,  to  which  Well- 
hausen  gives  the  name  of  the  Priest  Code,  erobmces. 
the_siibs£quent  portion  of  Exodus,  ch.  2 5^;;^  with 
the  exception  of  three  chapters  (;^2-34)  relating  to  the 
affair  of  the  golden  calf,  the  whole  of  Leviticjaa^and 
considerable  sectjori§_jiL-N^umbers,  ch.  i-io,  15-19, 
25-36.  The  third_^.is  found  in  the  legislative  portion 
of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy.  These  three  bodies  of 
law,  it  is  affirmed,  are  not  the  product  of  one  legis- 
lator or  of  one  age,  but  took  their  rise  in  distinct  and 
widely  separated  periods. 

In  the  dissection  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  Well 
hausen  accepts  with  some  modifications  from  the  lit- 
erary critics,  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  belongs  to 
what  is  commonly  termed  the  Jehovist  document ; 
so  called  because  it,  throughout  the  book  of  Genesis, 
prevailingly  speaks  of  God  by  his  name  Jehovah. 
Wellhausen  distinguishes  it  by  the  initials  JE,  to 
indicate  its  composite  character,  as  including  likewise 
the  sections  which,  since  Hupfeld,  have  been  attribu- 
ted to  the  so-called  Second  Elohist,  a  writer  who  uses 
the  term  Elohim  for  God  in  Genesis,  but  differs  ma- 
terially in  style  from  the  other  sections  using  the 
2 


1 8  THE  WELLHA  USEN  HYPO  THESIS. 

same  term.  This  document  is  of  a  prevailingly  his- 
torical  character,  only  inserting  this  brief  code  of 
laws  at  what  the  writer  considers  its  proper  historical 
place ;  and  another  still  briefer  legislative  passage  in 
Ex.  34,  which  seems  to  be  closely  related  to  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant,  but  which  Wellhausen  claims  was  of 
a  quite  independent  origin.  According  to  the  nar- 
rative in  which  they  are  found,  these  laws  were  given 
by  God  to  Moses  on  the  summit  of  Sinai.  But  the 
internal  evidence  is  held  to  be  decisive  against  this. 
It  implies  that  the  people  for  whom  it  was  drawn  up 
were  engaged  in  agriculture.  It  speaks,  Ex.  22 :  5,6, 
of  fields  and  vineyards  and  standing  grain,  and  pre- 
scribes the  restitution  to  be  made  in  case  of  damage 
done  to  either;  ver.  29  requires  promptness  in  offer- 
ing the  best  of  their  fruits  and  the  products  of  their 
presses;  23:  10,  11  directs  that  their  fields  should  be 
tilled,  and  the  fruits  of  their  vineyards  and  oliveyards 
should  be  gathered  for  six  years,  but  not  in  the 
seventh  ;  ver.  16  appoints  feasts  at  haryest  and  at  in- 
gathering. Hence  it  is  inferred  that  these  laws  could 
not  have  been  drawn  up  until  Israel  was  settled  in 
Canaan,  and  there  learned  the  art  of  agriculture,  the 
people  having  been  nomads  previously. 

It  is  further  claimed  tliat  these  laws  imply  and 
sanction  numerous  sanctuaries  in  different  parts  of  the 
land:  that  the  direction,  20:24,  25,  to  erect  an  altar 
of  earth  or  stone  wherever  God  should  record  his 
name  can  not  refer  to  the  brazen  altar  at  the  taber- 
nacle or  temple,  and  can  not  be  limited  to  one  single 
spot;  and  that  the  same  thing  is  implied  21  :  13,  14 
in  God's  altar  being  a  refuge  for  the  unintentional 


THE  WELLHA  USEN  H  YPO  THESIS.  1 9 

manslayer,  since  one  place  of  refuge  would  be  mani- 
festly insufficient  for  the  whole  land  ;  as  well  as  22  :  30 
in  their  giving  the  firstlings  of  their  cattle  to  God 
QJlJUlfc ..eighth.... d§y;  since  the  owner  of  flocks- and 
herds  could  not  journey  to  a  distant  sanctuary  every 
time  that  a  first-born  lamb  or  calf  reached  its  eighth 
day.  These  regulations,  it  is  said,  correspond  with 
the  state  of  things  exhibited  in  the  books  of  Judges 
and  Samuel,  and  in  the  early  part  of  the  history  of 
the  kings.  Samuel  and  others  offered  sacrifice  in 
various  parts  of  the  land  without  censure  and  appar- 
ently without  any  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  a 
law  restricting  sacrifice  to  the  altar  at  the  tabernacle. 
And  with  this  agree,  it  is  said,  the  historical  por- 
tions of  this  same  Jehovist  document,  which  record 
the  offerings  made  by  the  patriarchs  at  various  places, 
at  Bethel,  Beersheba  and  elsewhere.  These  are  not 
narratives  of  actual  fact,  but  stories  designed  to  give 
an  ancestral  and  even  divine  sanction  to  the  sanctu- 
aries of  later  days.  Among  the  sacred  spots  resorted 
to  in  different  parts  of  the  land,  sorne  had  been  sanc- 
tii§jri.e5  before  the  Israelites  occupied  Canaan,  the 
people  continuing  to  venerate  the  places  which  had 
been  hallowed  by  the  former  inhabitants,  only  sub- 
stituting the  worship  of  Jehovah  for  that  of  Baal ; 
other  sanctuaries  had  been  founded  by  the  Israelites 
themselves  since  the  conquest.  The  distinction  be- 
tween the  more  ancient  and  the  more  recent  sanctu- 
aries survived  in  popular  remembrance,  and  stories  of 
ancestral  worship  or  of  remarkable  events  in  the  lives 
of  the  patriarchs  readily  grew  up  in  connection  with 
the  former. 


20  THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS. 

The  prophetfi  from  the  days  of  Hosea  discounte 
nanced  the  abuses  and  idolatrous  forms  which  were 
sanctioned  or  tolerated  at  these  local  sanctuaries. 
Hence  they  could  not  have  been  the  authors  of  nar- 
ratives designed  to  exalt  and  add  lustre  to  such  sanc- 
tuaries. These  narratives  and  the  Jehovist  document, 
which  contains  them,  must  belong  to  a  time  when  the 
sacred  places  thus  linked  with  the  patriarchs  were 
universally  reverenced,  and  before  the  better  disposed 
began  to  regard  them  with  suspicion  or  to  denounce 
them  as  sources  of  corruption.  The  Book  of  the 
Covenant,  which  is  incorporated  in  this  document, 
must  therefore  antedate  the  period  of  the  propb 
ets. 

The  first  of  the  Pentateuchal  codes,  then,  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant,  took  its  rise  some  time  after  the  oc- 
cupation of  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  before  the  time 
of  Hosea,  Amos  and  Isaiah.  The  Deuteronomic 
laws,  while  adopting  and  repeating  with  some  modi- 
fications almost  everything  contained  in  the  cod(^ 
already  spoken  of,  in  one  point  present  a  striking 
contrast  with  it.  They  insist  with  the  utmost  stren- 
uousness  that  all  the  old  Canaanitish  sanctuaries 
must  be  destroyed  and  that  all  sacrifices  must  be 
brought  to  one  sole  altar  at  the  place  which  the  LORD 
should  choose ;  and  that  the  people  must  not  con- 
tinue to  do  "  after  all  the  things  that  we  do  here  this 
day,  every  man  whatsoever  is  right  in  his  own  eyes," 
Deut.  12:  1-8.  This,  it  is  claimed,  gives  evidence 
that  these  laws  constitute  a  new  departure,  an  attempt 
to  reform  the  existing  state  of  things  by  abolishing 
the  local  sanctuaries,  to  which  the  people  had  freely 


THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS.  2I 

resorted  before,  and  confining  the  worship  of   God 
henceforth  to  a  single  sanctuary. 

Now  just  such  an  attempt  to  centralize  worship 
was  made  in  the  reign  of  Josiah.  By  the  most  active 
and  resolute  measures  he  put  an  end  to  the  sanctu- 
aries outside  of  Jerusalem,  and  required  all  worship 
to  be  strictly  limited  to  the  temple  there.  And  he 
did  so  in  confessed  obedience  to  a  book  of  the  law 
then  recently  discovered  in  the  temple.  This  book 
was  the  Deuteronomic  law,  and  this  event  fixes  both 
the  time  when  and  the  circumstances  under  which 
that  law  originated.  It  was  the  product  of  the  pro- 
phetic party,  aided  by  the  priests,  in  opposition  to 
the  hitherto  prevailing  popular  religion.  The  best 
men  of  the  nation  had  become  convinced  that  wor- 
ship could  only  be  regulated  and  kept  pure  by  being 
centralized.  The  local  sanctuaries  tended  to  foster 
debased  and  corrupting  forms  of  worship.  All  at- 
tempts to  purify  them  had  proved  unavailing.  Hosea 
and  Amos  unsparingly  denounced  them,  not  thereby 
meaning  to  disapprove  of  multiplicity  of  sanctuaries 
in  itself  considered,  but  of  the  abuses  which  had 
gained  lodgment  in  them.  Solomon  had  built  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem,  not  with  any  view  of  making  it 
the  sole  place  of  sacrifice,  much  less  under  the  con- 
straint of  any  statute,  requiring  that  there  should  be 
only  one  sanctuary,  but  to  add  splendor  to  the  royal 
residence  by  rearing  a  magnificent  sanctuary  there. 
The  worship  in  high  places  was  not  abolished  under 
Solomon  nor  his  immediate  successors.  The  recorded 
attempt  by  Hezekiah  to  destroy  them  Wellhausen 
discredits,  thinking  it  much  more  probable  that  he 


^2  THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS. 

simply  sought  to  destroy  the  images  and  idolatrous 
symbols  which  were  found  in  them ;  inasmuch  as 
Isaiah,  who  had  the  largest  influence  with  the  king, 
did  not  oppose  the  high  places  as  such,  but  only  the 
idolatry  which  was  practiced  there,  and  he  regarded 
Jerusalem  as  sacred  not  because  it  contained  the 
temple,  but  because  it  was  the  centre  and  seat  of 
Jehovah's  empire. 

While,  however,  the  centralization  of  worship  had 
never  yet  been  attempted  nor  so  much  as  thought 
of,  there  were  influences  at  work  which  tended  in 
that  direction.  The  temple  at  the  capital  was  natu- 
rally superior  in  splendor  and  celebrity  to  the  sanc- 
tuaries in  rural  districts  and  provincial  towns.  The 
overthrow  and  exile  of  the  ten  tribes,  amongst  whom 
high  places  principally  abounded,  came  to  be  regard- 
ed as  a  divine  declaration  against  them,  while  the 
signal  protection  accorded  to  Jerusalem  and  the  dis- 
astrous overthrow  of  Sennacherib  gave  new  ^clat  to 
its  temple  as  a  specially  favored  divine  abode.  The 
prophetic  denunciations  of  the  high  places,  though 
really  directed  against  the  corruptions  which  had 
crept  in  there  and  the  perverted  notions  of  the  merit 
of  ritual  performances,  further  lessened  their  prestige 
and  influence.  The  comparative  purity  of  the  wor- 
ship maintained  at  Jerusalem,  though  this  was  not 
free,  so  Wellhauscn  thinks,  from  idolatrous  taint,  and 
the  fact  that  it  was  more  directly  subject  to  a  super- 
vision which  could  exclude  abuses  that  were  liable  to 
spring  up  in  remoter  or  more  obscure  places,  strength- 
ened the  attachment  of  the  pious  to  the  temple  and 
led  them  to  look  with  disfavor  upon  all  other  sane- 


THE   WEL  L  HA  USEN  H  YPO  THESIS, 


^■2> 


tuaries.  While  finally  the  inconsiderable  size  of  the 
kingdom  of  Judah,  which  now  alone  survived,  made 
the  closing  of  the  local  sanctuaries  possible  as  never 
before.  Under  these  circumstances  the  restriction 
of  worship  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  was  resolved 
upon  as  a  necessary  reform  and  the  only  method  by 
which  idolatry  could  be  effectually  and  permanently 
suppressed.  Accordingly  with  this  view  the  Deuter- 
onomic  Code  was  prepared,  and  a  hearty  support  given 
by  both  priests  and  prophets  to  its  enforcement  by 
Josiah. 

The  centralization  of  worship,  which  was  thus  the 
great  need  of  that  period,  is_the,  cliaxacLerjstx^^^^ 
tuje  of  Deuteronomy,  which  explains  all  its  devia- 
tions from  the  antecedent  Book  of  the  Covenant. 
Thus,  while  the  early  usage  had  been  that  every 
animal  slain  for  food  must  first  be  offered  in  sacrifice 
at  some  sanctuary  easily  accessible,  Deuteronomy 
recognizes  the  fact  that  under  the  new  order  of  things 
it  would  be  impossible  to  make  a  pilgrimage  to  the 
one  central  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem,  on  every  such  oc- 
casion. Hence  form-al  permission  is  granted,  Deut. 
12  :  15,  21,  to  slay  animals  for  food  in  all  their  gates, 
i.  e.j  at  their  homes  in  any  part  of  the  land.  By 
closing  the  local  sanctuaries  those  who  had  minis- 
tered in  them  would  be  deprived  of  their  occupation 
and  means  of  livelihood  ;  hence  the  frequent  injunc- 
tions in  Deuteronomy  to  befriend  the  Levites  as  a 
needy  class,  12  :  19,  etc.,  and  the  explicit  direction, 
18  : 6-8,  that  Levites  coming  up  from  any  part  of  the 
land  to  Jerusalem  should  have  the  same  right  to 
minister  there  as  those  connected  with  the  temple 


24      •       THE   WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS, 

Under  the  old  law  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  Ex. 
22  :  30,  the  firstlings  of  their  cattle  were  offered  to 
God  on  the  eighth  day:  this  was  practicable  when 
there  were  sanctuaries  in  every  neighborhood.  But 
in  abohshing  these,  Deuteronomy  makes  provision 
for  the  change  in  this  respect  by  ordaining,  15  :  19,  20, 
that  all  firstlings  should  be  offered  year  by  year  at 
the  sanctuary,  and  permission  was  given,  14 :  23-26, 
to  convert  them  into  money  at  their  homes  with 
which  to  purchase  an  equivalent  when  they  arrive  at 
Jerusalem. 

While  for  reasons  such  as  have  been  recited,  the 
law  of  Deuteronomy  is  assigned  to  the  period  of 
the  struggle  for  centralization  of  worship,  which  cul- 
minated under  Josiah,  the  Levitical  law  is  attributed 
to  a  still  later  date,  when  that  struggle  had  been  suc- 
cessfully terminated.  Instead  of  the  urgent  demand 
to  abolish  other  sanctuaries  and  restrict  worship  to 
one  only,  which  is  found  in  Deuteronomy,  the  Priest 
Code  everywhere  takes  the  unity  of  the  altar  and  of 
the  sanctuary  for  granted,  as  a  settled  principle  of 
the  worship  of  Jehovah,  and  one  which  was  univer- 
sally acknowledged. 

The  success  of  the  prophetic  party  under  Josiah 
was  only  temporary.  The  attachment  of  the  people 
to  their  ancestral  sanctuaries  was  too  strong  to  be 
uprooted  at  once.  In  succeeding  reigns  the  high 
places  were  again  restored  and  things  returned  very 
much  to  the  old  status.  And  it  is  doubtful  whether 
the  desired  change  could  have  been  brought  about 
had  the  people  remained  undisturbed  in  their  own 
land.     But  the  Babylonish  exile  by  removing  them 


THE   W'ELLHAU SEN  HYPOTHESIS. 


25 


from  Canaan  broke  up  all  their  old  associations  and 
severed  them  from  their  holy  places  until  these  were 
forgotten  and  their  spell  was  broken.  After  the  cap- 
tivity Israel  as  a  whole  did  not  return,  but  those  only 
who  were  most  firmly  attached  to  the  worship  of 
Jehovah  and  who  were  willing  to  be  guided  by  the 
prophets.  They  were  not  properly  a  nation,  but  a 
religious  sect.  The  small  impoverished  community 
which  settled  at  or  near  Jerusalem  had  but  one  sanc- 
tuary to  which  to  go.  The  disposition  to  worship  in 
high  places  was  completely  broken  and  never  reap- 
peared. It  was  to  a  public  assembly  of  these  re- 
turned exiles  that  Ezra  produced  the  law  adapted  to 
this  state  of  things,  formally  read  it,  and  in  a  solemn 
manner  engaged  them  to  obey  it.  This,  then,  was  the 
origin  of  the  Priest  Code,  in  which  the  unity  of  the 
sanctuary  is  not,  as  in  Deuteronomy,  spoken  of  as  an 
innovation  upon  existing  usages,  but  as  though  it 
had  been  established  from  the  beginning  and  even 
ordained  by  Moses  in  the  wilderness,  the  figment  of 
a  Mosaic  tabernacle,  being  simply  the  reflex  of  the 
temple  of  Solomon  transported  back  to  those  early 
times. 

As  a  consequence  the  whole  character  of  the  re- 
ligion of  Israel  was  completely  changed.  This  was 
indeed  a  necessary  result  of  the  centralization  aimed 
at  in  Deuteronomy,  though  it  was  a  result  neither 
foreseen  nor  desired  by  the  authors  of  that  law. 
Religion  now  became  a^  ^l^tter^^f  public  ritual^^  an 
affair  of  the  priesthood  ;  from  being  the  spontaneous 
expression  of  devout  feeling  in  the  varied  circum- 
stances of  life,  it  was  petrified  into  a  monotonous 


26  THE  WELLHAUSEN  H IPOTHESIS, 

round  of  the  most  minutely  prescribed  services.  The 
body  of  the  people  were  remote  from  the  sanctuary 
and  only  visited  it  at  special  and  stated  times.  The 
daily  worship  was  conducted  by  the  priests  without 
the  participation  of  the  people,  whose  presence  was 
in  nowise  essential  to  its  efficacy.  Sacrifice  had  for- 
merly been  a  joyous  tribute  of  gratitude  to  God  for 
personal  or  domestic  gifts  or  blessings,  and  a  chief 
feature  of  it  was  a  festive  meal  partaken  of  by  the 
offerer  and  his  family  or  friends.  But  now  the  indi- 
vidual and  the  household  were  sunk  in  the  mass  of  the 
congregation  of  Israel.  What  was  peculiar  to  each, 
gave  way  to  what  was  common  to  all.  The  sacrifice 
instead  of  being  a  specific  offering  on  individual  oc- 
casion was  presented  rather  on  behalf  of  the  whole 
people,  and  came  to  be  regarded  in  the  sombre  light 
of  an  atonement  for  sin  in  which  all  shared.  New 
forms  of  sacrifice  giving  special  prominence  to  this 
idea,  the  sin-offering  and  the  trespass-offering,  v/hich 
were  never  heard  of  till  the  time  of  Ezekiel,  are  pre- 
scribed in  the  Priest  Code.  And  the  idea  culminated 
in  the  annualday  of  Atonement,  which  was  altogether 
foreign  to  the  worship  of  earlier  times,  and  is  an  in- 
novation later  than  the  time  of  Ezekiel,  and,  in  fact, 
even  than  that  of  Ezra.  The  sacred  incense,  which 
none  but  a  priest  could  offer  except  at  the  peril  of 
their  lives,  and  the  golden  altar  of  incense,  of  which 
earlier  history  knows  nothing,  are  also  innovations 
of  the  Priest  Code,  which  is  quite  in  the  spirit  of  the 
later  Phariseeism  rather  than  in  that  of  ancient  Israel. 
The  advocates  of  this  hypothesis  are  at  no  pains  to 
conceal  the  fact,  which  is  sufficientlv  obvious,  that  it 


THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS,  27 

is  quite  at  variance  witli  the  statements  of  the  sacred 
writers.  It  is  expressly  declared  of  the  three  codes 
that  they  originated  not  in  distinct  and  widely  sepa- 
rated  periods  after  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  but  with 
Moses  himself  before  Canaan  was  entered.  The  Book 
of  the  Covenant  and  the  law  of  Deuteronomy  are 
explicitly  stated  to  have  been  written  by  Moses,  and 
the  Levitical  law  is  said  in  each  of  its  statutes  to  have 
been  directly  communicated  by  God  to  him.  And 
the  precise  time  and  occasion,  when  these  several 
laws  were  either  orally  declared  or  committed  to  writ- 
ing, are  given  with  circumstantial  detail.  All  this, 
however,  is  set  aside  as  mere  fictitious  drapery,  though 
it  has  never  been  satisfactorily  explained  how  succes- 
sive codes  of  law  could  ever  have  been  accepted  and 
submitted  to  as  genuine  and  authoritative  enactments 
of  Moses,  and  which  had  always  been  in  force  since 
his  day, —  and  that,  too,  by  the  generation  in  which 
they  had  been  concocted  and  who  must  have  known 
that  they  had  never  been  heard  of  before. 

Then  in  the  various  historical  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  it  is  claimed  that  a  distinction  is  to  be 
made  between  the  facts  as  they  really  were  and  the 
coloring  which  the  various  writers  have  given  to 
them.  CJiromcles,_wJii(±^ck^^  represents  the  Levit- 
ical law  as  in  operation  throughout  the  whole  period. 
of  the  kingdom  in  Israel,  is  set  aside  as  altogether 
unreliable,  written  in  theiater£st  of  the-Priest  Code 
and  falsifying  the  history  in  order  to  bring  it  into  cor- 
respondence with  that  Code.  The  autlior  of  Kings, 
though  unacquainted,  it  is  said,  with  the  Priest  Code, 
lived  subsequent  to  the  introduction  of  the  Deuter- 


28  THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS, 

onomic  law,  and  has  not  scrupled  to  weave  in  his  own 
opinions  of  its  Mosaic  origin,  which  must  be  disen- 
tangled from  his  narrative  before  it  can  be  implicit])' 
relied  upon.  So  too  the  histories  of  Judges  and 
Samuel,  though  these  are  paraded  as  the  stTonghoid 
of  the  hypothesis,  nevertheless  have  not  come  down 
to  us  in  their  primitive  and  authentic  form.  They 
have  been  revised  and  retouched,  and  these  additions 
of  a  later  age,  imbued  with  the  notions  of  that  period, 
must  be  eliminated  by  critical  processes  before  the^ 
true  original  shape  of  the  narrative  is  reached.  The 
history  of  Israel  as  it  has  been  transmitted  to  us,  has 
been  systematically  altered  and  falsified  to  further 
the  ends  of  the  prophetic  and  priestly  party.  It  must 
be  restored  to  what  the  modern  critical  instinct  sees 
fit  to  regard  as  its  true  original  form, — that  is  to  say, 
to  a  form  which  shall  correspond  with  the  hypothesis 
to  be  maintained  and  from  which  everything  has  been 
expunged  that  opposes  it. 

The  hypothesis,  which  has  been  thus  briefly  sketched 
in  its  outline  and  in  the  general  tenor  of  the  grounds 
adduced  to  support  it,  though  bold  and  revolutionary, 
had  such  an  appearance  of  scientific  precision,  and 
was  so  ingeniously  shaped  in  correspondence  with 
historical  facts,  that  it  gained  a  sudden  popularity. 
Two  additional  causes  likewise  contributed  to  this 
result.  In  the  first  place  it  coincided  with  the  current 
tendency  to  trace  everywhere  a  gradual  development 
by  subjecting  the  religion  of  Israel  to  this  same  law. 
It  claims  that  their  institutions  were  not  given  to  the 
people  in  completed  form  at  the  outset  of  their  his- 
tory, but  proceeded  from  rude  and  imperfect  begin- 


THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS. 


29 


nings  to  more  and  more  advanced  forms  under  his- 
torical influences  which  it  undertakes  to  indicate. 
Their  ideas  and  worship  were  slowly  lifted  from  the 
level  of  their  idolatrous  and  polytheistic  neighbors  to 
the  elevation  which  they  reached  under  the  prophets, 
and  finally  passed  into  the  stage  of  ritualistic  formal- 
ism which  characterized  the  Judaism  of  a  later  date. 
This  commended  it  to  those  who  saw  in  it  a  plausible 
means  of  undermining  supernatural  religion  by  doing 
away  with  the  need  and  the  reality  of  miraculous  in- 
terventions and  prophetic  foresight  and  reducing  all 
to  a  progression  explicable  on  purely  natural  prin- 
ciples. It  proved  likewise  acceptable  to  others  who 
held  fast  their  religious  faith,  but  who  thought  that 
they  could  see  the  supernatural  hand  of  God  still  con- 
spicuous though  working  by  other  methods  and  in 
different  lines  from  those  which  he  had  previously 
been  supposed  to  pursue. 

The  other  potent  cause  of  its  popularity  lay  in  the 
state  of  critical  opinion  when  it  made  its  appearance. 
It  completely  outflanked  the  positions  taken  by  its 
predecessors,  and  bore  down  upon  them  with  irresist- 
ible force.  To  their  uncertain  and  slenderly  sup- 
ported conjectures  as  to  the  respective  ages  of  the 
successive  strata,  which  they  agreed  to  distinguish  in 
the  Pentateuch,  it  opposed  sharply  defined  conclu- 
sions based  on  an  imposing  number  of  skilfully  mar-' 
shalled  historical  data.  And  it  showed  how  utterly  un- 
tenable was  the  opinion  of  those  who  referred  Deuter- 
onomy to  the  time  of  the  later  kings  on  the  ground 
that  its  law  restricting  sacrifice  to  a  single  sanctuary 
could  not  have  existed  before  the  reign  of  Josiah,  or 


30  THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS. 

at  any  rate  that  of  Hezekiah,  and  yet  quietly  suffered 
Leviticus,  with  its  recognition  of  but  one  sanctuary 
and  one  altar  of  sacrifice,  to  have  been  in  existence 
long  before.  This  position  is  self-contradictory  ;  and 
Wellhausen  justly  directs  his  well-aimed  and  unspar- 
ing shafts  of  ridicule  against  those  who  ''  with  blind 
faith  hold  fast  not  to  the  church  tradition— there 
would  be  sense  in  that — but  to  a  hypothesis  a  few 
decenniums  old,  for  such  is  De  Wette's  discovery  that 
Deuteronomy  is  more  recent  than  the  Priest  Code."  ^ 

There  are  a  few  general  observations,  which  may 
here  be  made  in  relation  to  this  hypothesis  of  Well- 
hausen in  a  preliminary  way. 

I.  The  three  Pentateuchal  codes  so  called  do  not 
belong  to  distinct  periods  of  the  people's  history.  It 
is  claimed  for  them  all  in  the  most  explicit  manner 
that  they  were  delivered  immediately  by  Moses  him- 
self. The  account  given  of  them  is  quite  simple  and 
satisfactory,  and  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  dis- 
crediting it.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant  was  drawn 
up  at  Mount  Sinai  directly  after  the  proclamation  of 
the  ten  commandments  from  its  summit  and  prepara- 
tory to  the  formal  ratification  of  the  covenant  between 
Jehovah  and  Israel.  That  such  a  relation  was  estab- 
lished then  and  there  and  under  the  circumstances 
here  recorded  was  the  steadfast  faith  of  Israel  from 
that  time  forward ;  a  faith  which  is  well  accredited, 
and  is  the  more  remarkable  as  the  scene  is  altogether 
outside  of  the  territory  of  Israel,  the  holy  land,  to 

•  Wellhausen's  "  Gcschichte  Israels,"  p.  173-  This  paragraph  is 
dropped  in  the  second  edition,  entitled  "Prolegomena  zur  Ge- 
schichte  Israels,"  1883. 


THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS.  31 

which,  as  the  critics  tell  us,  Jehovah  and  his  worship 
were  so  strictly  bound.  No  possible  reason  can  be 
given  why  this  most  sacred  transaction,  which  lay  at 
the  basis  of  the  entire  history  and  worship  of  Israel, 
should  have  been  referred  to  this  remote  point  in  the 
desert,  away  from  the  sacred  soil  of  Canaan,  away 
from  every  patriarchal  association,  away  from  every 
spot  that  was  venerated  in  the  past  or  that  was  hal- 
lowed or  resorted  to  in  the  present,  unless  that  was 
the  place  where  it  actually  occurred.  That  laws  first 
issued  in  Jehovah's  name  in  Canaan  should  be  at. 
tributed  to  this  mountain  in  the  wilderness,  with 
which  Jehovah  had  no  special  connection  before  or 
since,  is  inconceivable.  The  sublime  miracles  attend- 
ing the  promulgation  of  the  law  are  surely  no  reason 
for  disputing  the  truth  of  the  record  ;  for  they  were 
certainly  in  place  if  miracles  ever  were.  Moses,  trained 
in  the  wisdom  of  Egypt,  was  plainly  competent  to 
the  task  of  framing  this  simple  body  of  statutes, 
which  was  largely  intended  in  the  first  instance  for 
the  guidance  of  the  judges  who  had  recently  been 
appointed  to  assist  Moses  in  the  settlement  of  con- 
troversies arising  among  the  people.  And  as  they 
expected  shortly  to  take  possession  of  Canaan,  these 
laws  naturally  contemplated  not  only  the  immediate 
present,  but  the  proximate  future  when  they  would 
be  the  owners  of  fields  and  vineyards  and  be  engaged 
in  agricultural  pursuits. 

After  the  covenant  with  Jehovah  had  been  duly 
ratified,  provision  was  next  made  for  the  maintenance 
of  this  relation  by  instituting  ordinances  of  worship. 
A  new  body  of  regulations  was  accordingly  demanded 


32  THE   WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS. 

for  this  specific  purpose,  establishing  a  sanctuary,  & 
priesthood,  a  ritual  and  sacred  seasons.  This  was 
done  in  the  Levitical  law  or  the  so-called  Priest  Code, 
which  was  mainly  drawn  up  during  the  year  that  the 
people  remained  encamped  at  Sinai,  and  then  added 
to  from  time  to  time  during  the  subsequent  journey- 
ing in  the  wilderness.  The  particularity  and  minute- 
ness of  its  prescriptions  need  not  surprise  any  one 
who  recalls  the  numerous  petty  details  with  which* 
the  ritual  of  ancient  Egypt  was  burdened. 

Finally,  when  Israel  had  reached  the  borders  of  the 
promised  land,  and  their  great  leader  knew  that  he 
must  die,  he  delivered  those  impressive  farewell  dis- 
courses which  are  found  in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy, 
exhorting  them  in  the  most  tender  and  earnest  terms 
to  adhere  faithfully  to  the  Lord's  service  and  to  obey 
his  laws.  And  he  takes  this  opportunity  to  recapitu- 
late them  so  far  as  was  needed  for  the  guidance  of 
the  people,  with  such  modifications  as  were  suggested 
by  the  experience  of  forty  years  and  the  altered  cir- 
cumstances of  Israel,  who  were  now  to  enter  at  once 
upon  the  inheritance  promised  to  their  fathers. 

Each  of  these  bodies  of  law  has  thus  its  distinct 
occasion  and  separate  purpose,  and  each  is  appro- 
priate to  the  circumstances  which  called  it  forth. 
They  are  throughout  cast  in  the  mould  of  the  Mosaic 
age  and  of  the  abode  in  the  wilderness,  and  their 
whole  style  and  character  are  as  different  as  possible 
from  that  which  they  must  have  borne  if  they  had 
been  produced  at  any  subsequent  period.  Much  of 
the  contents,  particularly  of  Deuteronomy  and  of  the 
Levitical  law,  would  be  not  only  superfluous,  but  pre- 


THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS,  33 

posterous,  if  the  former  was  produced  in  the  time  ol 
Josiah  and  the  latter  in  that  of  Ezra. 

2.  The  differences  between  these  codes  are  such  as 
arise  naturally  from  the  difference  of  occasion  and 
purpose  already  referred  to,  and  do  not  by  any  means 
justify  the  assumption  that  they  did  not  all  emanate 
from  one  authority  and  belong  to  the  same  period  of 
time.  Most  of  the  discrepancies  alleged  are  purely 
imaginary,  and  are  created  by  false  interpretations  of 
the  critics  themselves.  And  while  there  are  a  few 
particulars  which  it  is  difficult  to  harmonize,  these 
are  not  more  than  might  be  expected  in  institutions 
so  ancient,  so  foreign  to  our  usages,  and  in  regard  to 
which  we  are  so  imperfectly  informed.  The  asserted 
difference  in  regard  to  the  unity  of  the  sanctuary, 
which  is  the  main  prop  of  the  entire  hypothesis,  posi- 
tively does  not  exist.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant 
does  not  sanction  a  plurality  of  altars :  on  the  con^ 
trary  it  contemplates  but  one  altar,  Ex.  21  :  14,  and 
one  house  of  God,  23  :  19.  It  contains,  20:  24  f.,  the 
most  general  law  for  the  Israelitish  altar,  and  one  design- 
ed to  cover  all  possible  cases  ;  and  it  is  of  course  less  ex- 
plicit than  the  succeeding  codes  to  which  it  was  pre- 
liminary. It  does  not  restrict  the  altar  to  any  single 
locality,  for  Israel  was  marching  through  the  wilder- 
ness and  must  offer  worship  wherever  they  encamped. 
It  does  not  limit  sacrifice  to  the  tabernacle,  for  this 
was  not  yet  built,  and  no  direction  had  yet  been  given 
for  its  construction.  It  prescribes  that  an  altar  of 
earth  or  stone  should  be  erected,  not  in  every  place 
taken  at  random,  nor  wherever  they  might  think 
proper  to  rear  an  altar,  but  wherever  God  should  re- 
3 


34  THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS. 

cord  his  name,  or  make  his  name  to  be  remembered 
by  any  disclosure  or  manifestation  of  himself.  After 
the  erection  of  the  tabernacle  all  such  manifestations 
of  God  were  ordinarily  confined  to  it ;  so  that  this 
then  became  coincident  with  the  requirement  of  the 
Levitical  law  that  all  sacrifices  must  be  brought  to 
the  tabernacle,  wherever  that  might  be  in  their  migra- 
tions. And  when  the  time  arrived,  to  which  Deuter- 
onomy looks  forward,  I2:gi.,  when  Israel  should 
come  to  the  inheritance  whicli  the  Lord  was  giving 
them,  and  he  should  give  them  rest  from  all  their  en- 
emies round  about,  then  the  migrations  of  Israel  and 
of  the  house  of  God  established  in  the  midst  of  them 
would  terminate,  and  the  injunction  to  build  an  altar 
where  God  would  record  his  name  becomes  identical 
in  thought,  and  closely  related  even  in  the  form  of 
expression,  with  the  phrase  so  constantly  employed 
in  Deuteronomy,  "the  place  which  Jehovah  shall 
choose  to  place  his  name  there,"  12:5.  At  the  same 
time  the  fact  that  Deuteronomy  itself  directs,  27  :  5, 6, 
the  erection  of  an  altar  of  stone  upon  Ebal  in  terms 
manifestly  drawn  from  the  earlier  law  in  Exodus, 
20  :  25,  shows  that  extraordinary  altars  having  imme- 
diate divine  sanction  were  no  violation  of  that  unity 
of  the  sanctuary,  upon  which  this  book  so  strenuously 
insists.  There  is  accordingly  the  most  thorough 
agreement  of  the  three  codes  in  this  matter,  both  in 
principle  and  in  its  application  ;  and  no  such  diver- 
gence, as  this  most  extraordinary  hypothesis  assumes, 
is  to  be  found. 

3.  The  separate  correspondence  of  the  three  codes 
severally  with  three  distinct  periods  of  the  history  is 


THE  WELLHA  USEN  H  YPO  THESIS.  3  5 

likewise  a  chimera.  It  is  utterly  at  variance  with  the 
testimony  of  every  witness  that  we  are  able  to  sum- 
mon, to  maintain  that  the  unity  of  the  altar  was  not 
an  accepted  part  of  the  religion  of  Israel  until  the 
reign  of  Josiah.  The  book  of  Joshua  explicitly  informs 
us  that  it  belonged  both  to  their  creed  and  to  their 
practice  at  the  time  of  their  first  settlement  in  Canaan. 
When  Joshua  had  completed  the  conquest  of  the  land 
the  whole  congregation  of  the  children  of  Israel  assem- 
bled together  at  Shiloh  and  set  up  the  Mosaic  taber- 
nacle, 18  :  I,  whose  exclusiveness  is  beyond  dispute. 
Here  Eleazar  the  son  of  Aaron  v/as  priest ;  and  he 
with  Joshua  and  the  heads  of  the  people  divided  the 
land  by  lot  before  the  LORD  at  the  door  of  the  taber- 
nacle  of  the  congregation,  19  :  51.  The  narrative  of 
the  altar  of  witness  erected  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan  by 
the  two  tribes  and  a  half  and  the  negotiations  relative 
thereto,  ch.  22,  show  how  criminal  a  departure  from 
the  faith  of  Israel  the  building  of  a  separate  altar  was 
felt  to  be.  We  can  not  concede  to  the  critics  the  right 
to  set  these  statements  aside  as  summarily  as  they  do, 
simply  because  they  do  not  square  with  their  hypothesis. 
Proceeding  to  the  next  historical  book.  Judges 
knows  but  one  house  of  Jehovah,  19  :  18,  that  at  Shi- 
loh, 18  :  31,  where  the  annual  feast  of  Jehovah  was 
celebrated,  21  :  19.  The  critics  indeed  profess  to  find 
mention  made  of  a  number  of  sanctuaries  at  Bochim, 
Gilgal,  Kedesh,  Tabor,  Ophrah,  Shechem,  the  two 
Mizpehs,  Zorah,  Bethel,  Dan,  and  the  chapel  of  the 
renegade  Micah.  The  whole  of  which  is  pure  inven- 
tion ;  and  to  adopt  a  simile,  which  Wellhausen '  him- 
"^  .*  "Geschichte  Israels,"  p.  167.  Prolegomena  (Eng.  Trans.),  p.  161. 


36  THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS, 

self  employs,  but  with  a  different  application,  they 
have  liberally  besprinkled  the  chart  of  history  with 
their  own  ideas  after  a  fashion  in  which  geographers 
sometimes  indulge  in  maps  of  unexplored  regions. 
With  the  exception  of  those  which  are  distinctly  stig- 
matized as  idolatrous  there  is  not  one  sanctuary  in 
the  whole  number.  The  only  seeming  deviations  from 
strict  regularity  arise  from  the  fact  that  upon  the  ex- 
traordinary manifestations  of  God's  presence  sacrifices 
were  at  once  offered  upon  the  spot ;  but  so  far  as  ap- 
pears they  were  strictly  limited  to  the  occasion  that 
called  them  forth.  The  allegation  that  the  stories  of 
these  theophanies  originated  at  a  later  time  to  procure 
credit  for  sanctuaries  which  had  been  established  at 
these  various  places,  as  well  as  the  like  assertion  made 
respecting  similar  events  in  the  lives  of  the  patriarchs, 
inverts  the  real  order  of  cause  and  effect.  Places  thus 
hallowed  by  divine  manifestations  gained  a  prestige 
which  led  in  some  instances  to  their  subsequent  selec- 
tion as  seats  of  idolatry.  But  the  narratives  of  the 
theophanies  were  not  generated  by  their  being  fre- 
quented as  places  of  sacrifice,  and  can  not  of  them- 
selves be  adduced  in  proof  that  they  were  ever  put  to 
such  a  use. 

According  to  the  Books  of  Samuel,  at  the  close  of 
the  period  of  the  Judges,  the  house  of  God  was  still 
in  Shiloh,  I  :  24,  and  is  expressly  identified  with  the 
Mosaic  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  2  :  22.  It  was 
resorted  to  by  all  Israel,  2  :  14,  1:3,  as  the  appointed 
place  of  sacrifice,  2  :  28,  29,  and  contained  the  ark 
which  was  the  symbol  of  the  divine  presence,  4  :  4. 
But  from  the  time  that  God  forsook  Shiloh  for  the 


THE   WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS. 


37 


sins  of  the  priests  and  people,  suffering  the  ark  to  fall 
into  the  hands  of  the  Philistines,  until  his  habitation 
was  fixed  in  Zion,  Ps.  132,  or  more  exactly  until  the 
temple  was  prepared  for  its  reception,  Jehovah  had 
no  dwelling-place  in  Israel.  During  this  anomalous 
period  the  law  of  the  unity  of  the  sanctuary  was  neces- 
sarily in  abeyance ;  and  the  people  were  obliged  to 
sacrifice  in  high  places  so  far  as.  they  sacrificed  at  all, 
I.  Kin.  3  :  2. 

But  with  the  erection  of  the  temple  of  Solomon 
and  the  depositing  of  the  ark  in  its  most  holy  place, 
and  the  coming  in  of  the  radiant  cloud  betokening 
the  divine  glory,  the  old  legal  status  was  again  re- 
newed. Thenceforward  this  was,  as  it  w^as  designed 
to  be,  I  Kin.  8:16-21,  the  one  house  of  God  in 
Israel,  and  high  places  were  ever  after  synonymous 
with  corruption  and  idolatry,  11  :/,  8,  14:23.  Good 
men  never  sanctioned  them.  To  this  there  is  but  one 
exception,  which  serves  to  confirm  the  rule,  the  altars 
of  which  Elijah  speaks,  19 :  10,  14,  when  in  the  schism 
and  apostasy  of  the  northern  kingdom  the  pious 
there  were  debarred  from  attendance  at  the  temple. 
God-fearing  princes  sought  to  remove  the  high  places, 
with  only  partial  success,  until  Hezekiah,  who  sup- 
pressed them  during  his  reign.  His  ungodly  son  and 
grandson,  Manasseh  and  Amon,  restored  them,  but 
Josiah  abolished  them  afresh.  The  law  of  the  unity 
of  the  sanctuary  instead  of  originating  in  the  reign 
of  the  last-named  king,  was  the  law  of  Israel's  his- 
tory from  the  beginning,  only  passing  under  eclipse 
at  one  degenerate  period  in  the  lifetime  of  Samuel 
and  of  Saul,  when  the  ark  of  the  Lord   became   an 


38  THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS. 

object  of  dread  instead  of  joyful  confidence,  and 
Israel  was  for  a  season  without  the  symbol  of  Jeho- 
vah's presence  or  the  privileges  of  his  sanctuary. 
There  never  was  but  one  ark  of  the  covenant :  the 
presence  of  that  ark  in  the  sanctuary  made  it  Jeho- 
vah's dwelling :  and  there  could  be  no  other. 

This  same  conclusion  is  further  confirmed  by  the 
unanimous  voice  of  Psalmists  and  of  Prophets.  They 
uniformly  speak  of  Zion  as  God's  earthly  dwelling- 
place,  never  of  any  other.  Not  a  solitary  passage 
can  be  adduced  from  any  one  of  them  which  refers 
to  other  places  of  sacrifice  than  Zion,  except  in  the 
language  of  rebuke  and  denunciation.  The  attempt 
to  foist  upon  different  periods  of  Israel's  history  a 
diversity  of  views  in  relation  to  God's  true  sanctuary 
is  a  signal  failure.  It  is  in  the  face  of  the  teaching 
of  every  book  in  the  Bible. 

It  will  be  sufficient  at  present  to  refer  briefly  to 
certain  other  palpable  falsities  in  the  methods  or 
results  of  Wellhausen's  hypothesis. 

He  infers  the  non-existence  of  a  statute  from  a  neg- 
lect or  disobedience  which  warrants  no  such  conclu- 
sion ;  and  he  claims  that  it  must  have  originated  at 
the  time  when  it  is  brought  into  new  prominence  or 
is  more  fully  enforced  than  before ;  a  method  of 
reasoning  which  might  equally  be  made  to  prove  that 
Luther  invented  the  New  Testament.  He  also  in- 
fers the  non-existence  of  laws  and  institutions  from 
the  simple  circumstance  of  their  not  being  mentioned 
or  referred  to  in  the  history,  even  though  there  was 
no  occasion  for  such  mention,  and  no  reason  to  expect 
it ;  and   the   fact   of  their  being  so  well   known  and 


THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS.  39 

constantly  observed  may  itself  account  for  the  omis- 
sion of  what  might  safely  be  taken  for  granted,  so 
that  any  special  reference  to  it  seemed  unnecessary 
Or  must  a  historian  of  America  be  perpetually  refer- 
ring to  the  fact  of  the  observance  of  the  fourth  of 
July  or  the  use  of  the  Gregorian  calendar? 

He  undertakes  to  establish  the  hypothesis  by  its 
correspondence  with  the  history :  and  in  order  to  do 
this  he  first  adjusts  the  sources  of  history  themselves 
by  critical  processes  in  which  he  assumes  the  very 
thing  to  be  proved,  and  denies  the  validity  and  genu- 
ineness of  every  passage  that  controverts  it ;  thus 
proving  his  point  by  the  fallacy  of  the  circle. 

He  requires  us  to  suppose  that  forged  codes  of 
laws  were  at  two  different  times  successfully  imposed 
upon  the  people  as  the  genuine  productions  of 
Moses,  and  this  though  they  were  at  variance  with 
laws  previously  in  force  and  regarded  as  his,  and 
though  the  serious  changes  which  they  introduced 
were  hostile  to  the  interests  of  numerous  and  power- 
ful classes. 

He  asks  us  to  believe  further  that  three  conflict- 
ing codes  of  laws,  the  more  recent  of  which  had  in 
each  case  displaced  its  predecessor,  came  in  some 
mysterious  way  to  be  regarded  as  of  equal  validity, 
and  were  all  blended  together  as  one  harmonious 
body  of  law,  in  which  no  discrepancies  were  suspected, 
all  being  accepted  as  alike  Mosaic  and  canonical,  and 
all  faithfully  obeyed  notwithstanding  the  increased 
burdens  thus  assumed. 

He  would  have  us  think  that  the  people  of  Israel 
have  been  from  the  beginning  utterly  mistaken  as  to 


40  THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS. 

their  own  institutions  and  written  records,  and  that 
these  have  throughout  been  systematically  falsified 
without  any  suspicion  of  the  fact  ever  being  awak 
ened  ;  that  their  entire  history  is  a  gigantic  fabrica- 
tion, which  was  accepted  as  consistent  and  true  until 
a  few  years  ago,  when  he  and  his  compeers  detected 
and  exposed  the  cheat. 

It  has  sometimes  been  said  that  this  hypothesis 
does  not  affect  the  Christian  faith  in  any  vital  way. 
It  leaves  the  contents  of  the  Scriptures  unchanged. 
It  is  merely  a  question  of  order;  whether  that  which 
has  commonly  been  placed  at  the  beginning,  really 
belongs  there  or  has  its  proper  place  at  a  later  stage 
in  the  divine  plan  of  guidance  or  instruction  ;  whether 
the  true  order  is  first  the  law,  then  the  psalms,  then 
the  prophets,  or  whether  the  prophets  may  not  have 
preceded  the  law  and  the  psalms ;  whether  the  law 
was  all  given  at  once  in  the  infancy  of  the  nation,  or 
whether  it  may  not  have  been  gradually  evolved  as 
the  changing  necessities  of  Israel  required.  Why 
may  not  the  divine  authority  of  Deuteronomy  and  of 
the  entire  Pentateuch  be  the  same,  though  the  former 
was  produced  under  Josiah  and  the  latter  reached  its 
present  form  under  Ezra,  as  though  all  had  come,  as 
we  now  have  it,  from  the  pen  of  Moses? 

The  serious  aspect  of  the  matter  is  that  the  truth- 
fulness of  the  Scriptures  is  impugned  at  every  step. 
If  this  hypothesis  be  true,  the  Scriptures  are  not 
what  they  represent  themselves  to  be ;  the  facts  of 
the  history  are  altogether  different  from  that  which 
they  declare ;  Iheir  testimony  is  unreliable  and  un- 
trustworthy.    It  requires  great  critical  acumen  to  sift 


THE  WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS, 


41 


the  evidence  and  extract  the  modicum  of  truth  from 
thg  mass  of  fabie^  The  inspiration  and  authority  oi 
the  Old  Testament  are  swept  away  entirely  or  can 
9nly  be  maintained  in  a  very  qualified  sellse,  And 
as  the  New  Testament  is  based  upon  the  Old,  how 
can  the  former  be  rationally  defended,  if  its  founda- 
tion in  the  latter  is  undermined  arid  totters  to  its 
fall?  How  can  our  confidence  in  the  Lofd  Jesus 
himself  remain  unshaken,  if  his  declarations  respecting 
Moses  and  his  law  are  not  to  be  trusted  ?  The  au- 
thors and  chief  promoters  of  the  hypothesis  do  not 
disguise  their  hostility  to  supernatural  religion.  The 
denial  of  the  truth  of  miracles  and  of  prophecy  is 
one  of  their  primary  principles,  and  is  the  corner- 
stone of  their  entire  structure.  The  hypothesis  is 
just  an  ingenious  attempt  to  account  for  the  Old 
Testament  on  purely  naturalistic  principles.  The 
violence  of  the  methods  to  which  it  is  obliged  to  re- 
sort to  compass  this  end,  and  the  extravagant  and 
incredible  conclusions  to  which  it  leads,  show  how 
impossible  is  the  task  which  it  has  proposed  to  itself. 
The  spirit  and  aims  of  those  who  urge  this  hy- 
pothesis do  not,  however,  concern  us  at  present.  We 
have  to  do  simply  with  the  hypothesis  itself  and  the 
arguments  by  which  it  is  defended.  In  this  brief 
course  of  lectures  it  will  be  impossible  to  deal  thor- 
oughly with  this  subject  in  its  entire  extent.  It  will 
be  best  to  restrict  our  examination  to  a  definite  field  ; 
and  I  have  selected  for  this  purpose  the  sacred  sea- 
sons of  the  Hebrews,  as  a  theme  interesting  in  itself 
and  one  upon  which  great  stress  has  been  laid  in  con- 
nection with   this   subject.     It   is   generally  agreed 


42  THE   WELLHAUSEN  HYPOTHESIS. 

among  the  critics  that  the  laws  relating  to  the  re- 
ligious festivals  of  the  Jews  furnish  one  of  the  strong- 
est supports  for  the  view  that*  the  Mosaic  institutions 
were  not  the  product  of  one  mind  or  of  one  age, 
but  that  they  advanced  from  simple  forms  in  prim 
itive  times  to  those  which  were  more  and  more  com- 
plex ;  and  that  the  successive  stages  of  the  process 
can  still  be  traced  in  the  various  enactments  on  this 
subject.  The  topic  to  which  your  attention  will  be, 
requested  in  the  subsequent  lectures  of  this  course, 
then,  will  be  the  annual  feasts  of  the  Hebrews  in 
their  bearing  upon  the  latest  phase  of  Pentateuchal 
criticism.  In  the  next  lecture  the  endeavor  will  be 
made  to  trace  the  history  of  critical  opinion  in  rela- 
tion to  these  feasts. 


II. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  OPINION  RESPECT- 
ING THE  HEBREW  FEASTS. 


II. 


THE    HISTORY  OF   OPINION    RESPECTING 
THE  HEBREW  FEASTS. 

DR.  ROBERTSON  SMITH  in  his  article  on  the 
"  Bible,"  in  the  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica," 
p.  636^,  says:  "On  the  Passover  and  feast  of  Un- 
leavened Bread  we  have  at  least  six  laws,  which  if  not 
really  discordant,  are  at  least  so  divergent  in  form 
and  conception  that  they  can  not  be  all  from  the 
same  pen."  Kuenen  undertakes  to  determine  the 
chronological  order  in  which  these  laws  must  have 
severally  followed  each  other,  each  representing  the 
usage  of  the  period  to  which  it  belongs.  Wellhausen 
maintains  that  certain  of  these  laws  correspond  with 
the  practice  indicated  in  the  historical  and  prophetic 
books  before  the  Babylonish  exile,  and  he  points  out 
others  which  represent  the  practice  subsequent  to 
the  exile  and  which  he  consequently  infers  could  only 
have  originated  in  the  post-exilic  period.  These  laws 
are  nevertheless  all  found  in  the  Pentateuch,  where 
it  is  expressly  declared  that  they  were  without  ex- 
ception given  by  Moses  to  Israel  in  the  wilderness. 

The  passages  in  the  books  of  Moses  relating  to  the 
annual  feasts  are  the  following,  viz. : 

I.  Ex.  xii.  1-28,  43-51,  xiii.  3-10,  the  narrative  of 
the  original  institution  of  the  Passover  and  of  the 

(45) 


46  THE  HIS  TOR  V  OF  OPINION 

feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,  and  the  regulations  r& 
specting  them  given  before  leaving  Egypt. 

2.  Ex.  xxiii.  14-19,  a  summary  account  of  the  three 
annual  feasts,  in  which  pilgrimages  were  required,  as 
prescribed  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  ratified  at 
Mount  Sinai. 

3.  Ex.  xxxiv.  18-26,  a  substantial  repetition  of  the 
preceding  upon  the  renewal  of  the  covenant  after  the 
sin  of  the  golden  calf. 

4.  Lev.  xxiii.,  an  enumeration  of  the  feasts  and  holy 
convocations  to  be  observed  in  the  course  of  the  year, 
with  the  special  ceremonies  connected  with  them. 

5.  Num.  ix.  5-14,  on  the  occasion  of  the  first  annual 
repetition  of  the  Passover  a  supplemental  observance 
of  it  was  ordained  for  those  unclean  or  absent  at  the 
appointed  season. 

6.  Num.  xxviii.,  xxix.,  the  public  offerings  required 
throughout  the  year,  including  those  at  the  annual 
feasts. 

7.  Deut.  xvi.  1-17,  an  admonition  to  observe  the 
three  annual  feasts  and  to  celebrate  them  at  the  sanc- 
tuary about  to  be  divinely  chosen. 

The  scheme  of  the  sacred  seasons  set  forth  in  these 
laws  is  consistent  and  complete.  It  is  based  on  the 
primitive  institution  of  the  weekly  Sabbath.  This  is 
a  regularly  recurring  portion  of  time,  withdrawn  from 
ordinary  worldly  occupation  and  surrendered  unto 
God  the  Creator,  not  as  a  full  discharge  of  obligation, 
a  payment  of  what  is  due  to  God,  so  that  when  this 
is  given  a  man  has  purchased  the  right  to  the  re- 
mainder of  his  time  for  his  own  exclusive  use;  but 
this  is  set  apart  in  a  special  manner  in  recognition  of 


RESPECTING  THE  HEBREW  FEASTS, 


47 


the  fact  that  all  belongs  to  God  and  should  be  used 
for  him.  The  observance  of  the  Sabbath  is  a  privi- 
lege as  well  as  a  duty.  It  is  a  weekly  release  from 
the  curse  of  labor  which  sin  has  imposed,  and  was 
further  to  Israel  a  commemoration  of  their  deliver- 
ance from  the  servitude  and  toil  of  Egypt,  Deut. 
5:15,  and  a  participation  for  the  time  in  the  rest  of 
Paradise  and  the  rest  of  God  and  a  foretaste  and  an- 
ticipation of  the  rest  that  remaineth  for  the  people  of 
God.     Ps.  95  :  II. 

This  patriarchal  institution  was  in  the  Mosaic  law 
expanded  into  a  sabbatical  system  by  applying  the 
septenary  division  in  succession  to  every  denomina- 
tion of  time.  The  seventh  month  was  a  sacred  month, 
marked  by  an  accumulation  of  holy  days,  its  first  day 
being  observed  as  a  sabbath,  including  which  there 
were  four  festive  sabbaths  and  six  additional  feast 
days  in  the  month.  The  seventh  year  was  a  sabbati- 
cal year,  during  which  the  land  was  to  rest  and  lie  un- 
tilled.  The  fiftieth  year,  or  the  year  succeeding  seven 
times  seven  years,  was  the  year  of  Jubilee,  which  gave 
release  from  the  burdens  of  impoverishment  and  ser- 
vitude ;  in  it  the  Israelite  who  had  sold  himself  for 
debt  was  set  free,  and  property  that  had  been  alienated 
reverted  to  its  original  owners ;  and  all  was  thus  re- 
stored to  its  primitive  status. 

The  sense  of  obligation  to  the  Creator,  and  rest 
from  worldly  toil,  were  thus  provided  for.  Gratitude 
for  the  gifts  which  he  bestows,  both  individual  and 
national,  and  the  expression  of  thankful  joy  in  them 
was  next  to  be  added.  This  was  the  specific  purpose 
of  the  feasts,  which  were  accordingly  appointed   at 


48  THE  HISTORY  OF  OPINION 

those  seasons  when  God's  bounty  is  so  richly  mani^ 
fested  in  the  productions  of  the  earth,  viz.,  at  the 
harvest  and  the  vintage.  The  harvest,  which  lasted 
through  several  weeks,  was,  as  it  were,  consecrated 
throughout  by  being  enclosed  between  two  festivals, 
Passover  and  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  at  the  be- 
ginning when  the  barley  was  reaped,  and  the  feast  of 
Weeks  at  its  close  when  the  wheat  was  harvested. 
The  ingathering  of  fruits  from  their  vineyards  and. 
their  oliveyards  completed  the  yield  of  the  year  and 
was  followed  by  the  most  joyous  feast  of  all,  that  of 
Tabernacles.  Passover  and  Tabernacles  were  likewise 
commemorative  of  great  national  benefits,  the  former 
occurring  at  the  season  of  the  Exodus  and  observed 
in  memory  of  the  sparing  of  the  first-born  in  Israel 
during  the  plague  which  desolated  Egypt ;  the  latter 
by  its  booths,  such  as  were  used  by  those  engaged  in 
the  vintage,  being  a  reminder  of  the  march  through 
the  wilderness.  At  each  of  these  three  festivals  every 
male  Israelite  was  required  to  make  a  pilgrimage  to 
the  sanctuary  and  there  rejoice  before  the  LORD, 
bringing  with  him  his  offerings  of  thanksgiving. 

These  feasts  were  linked  with  the  sabbatical  series 
by  being  governed  throughout  by  the  number  seven. 
Unleavened  Bread  and  Tabernacles  each  lasted  seven 
days,  and  began  on  the  fifteenth,  i.  ^,,  the  day  after 
2x7  days  of  the  first  and  the  seventh  month  respect- 
ively ;  while  the  feast  of  Weeks,  which  lasted  but  one 
day,  was  observed  upon  the  fiftieth  day,  i.  e.,  the  day 
after  yx.y  days  reckoned  from  the  presentation  of  the 
sheaf  of  the  first-fruits  at  the  feast  of  Unleavened 
Bread,  to  which  it  stood  in  obvious  and  direct  rela- 


RESPECTING  THE  HEBREW  FEASTS.        49 

tion,  thus  encircling  the  entire  harvest  season,  and 
bringing  the  festivities  connected  with  it  to  a  termi- 
nation, while  at  the  same  time  it  pointed  forward  to 
the  feast  of  Ingathering  yet  to  come.  In  like  manner 
a  day  observed  as  a  sabbath  was  added  at  the  end  of 
the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  in  a  sort  of  dependence  upon 
it,  though  not  properly  forming  a  part  of  it,  which 
brought  the  festivities  of  the  ingathering  and  the  en- 
tire festive  cycle  of  the  year  to  a  termination. 

One  other  idea  remained  to  be  emphasized,  that 
the  sacred  seasons  might  duly  represent  and  bring 
out  in  proper  prominence  all  the  distinctive  features 
of  the  religion  of  Israel,  to  whom  Jehovah  was  not 
only  the  Creator  of  all  and  the  bountiful  source  of 
all  good  both  individual  and  national,  but  also  the 
holy  God,  whose  imperative  demand  is  that  his  peo- 
ple shall  be  a  holy  people.  In  the  sacrifices  of  every 
day,  augmented  every  Sabbath  and  feast  day,  a  sym- 
bolic expiation  was  offered  for  sin.  These  reached 
their  culmination  in  the  annual  day  of  Atonement, 
whose  services  are  not  precisely  to  be  regarded  as 
supplementing  the  deficiencies  of  other  sacrifices : 
but  the  idea  of  the  expiation  of  sin  already  repre- 
sented in  the  latter  found  in  the  ritual  of  this  day 
its  highest  and  most  solemn  expression  in  regard  to 
the  offences  of  the  entire  year,  and  in  addition  there 
was  a  striking  representation  of  the  thought  that  the 
sins  of  the  people  were  taken  away  absolutely  and 
forever.  This  was  fixed  on  the  tenth  day  of  the 
seventh  month,  so  that  this  purgation  was  effected 
just  before  the  crowning  festival  of  the  year,  that  the 
people  emancipated  from  the  burden  of  guilt  might 
4 


50  THE  HISTORY  OF  OPINION 

with  a  heightened  joy  pay  their  thanksgivings  to 
Him  who  crowned  the  year  with  his  goodness.  And 
it  was  with  signal  propriety  that  the  trumpet  was 
sounded  upon  the  day  of  Atonement  every  fiftieth 
year  to  announce  the  opening  of  the  year  of  Jubilee, 
proclaiming  liberty  throughout  all  the  land,  and  the 
return  of  every  man  unto  his  inheritance. 

The  sacred  seasons  form  thus  a  complete  and 
symmetrical  scheme,  giving  proper  and  balanced  ex- 
pression to  the  leading  ideas  of  Israel's  religion,  and 
especially  adjusted  to  their  relation  to  God  as  their 
Creator,  Benefactor  and  Sanctifier.  It  is  a  natural, 
if  not  necessary  conclusion  that  this  is  no  accidental 
conglomerate.  It  is  not  the  long  accretion  of  ages, 
a  body  of  laws  and  usages  aggregated  in  the  course 
of  time  under  varying  and  contingent  circumstances. 
It  is  just  the  consistent  unfolding  of  one  definite 
scheme  of  thought,  and  as  such  bears  the  stamp  of 
one  reflecting  and  constructive  mind,  by  which  it  has 
been  carefully  elaborated  and  adjusted  into  corre- 
spondence with  certain  dominant  ideas.  The  judg- 
ment of  Ewald  '  upon  this  subject  is  the  more  in- 
structive, since  no  critic  ever  had  less  bias  in  favor  of 
traditional  opinions.  He  rejected  as  determinedly  as 
any  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  He 
alleged  that  "  only  a  few  scattered  and  mutilated 
fragments  of  the  life  and  laws  of  Moses  survive ": 
and  he  only  referred  to  Moses  *'  such  of  the  ancient 
institutions  of  the  Hebrews  as  are  of  so  unusual 
and    remarkable   a  character   that    they   must    have 

'  "  Zeitschrift  fur  die  Kundc  des  Morgcnlandes,"  Vol.   III.,  pp 
4ii»  434. 


RESPECTING  THE  HEBRE  W  FEASTS. 


5t 


proceeded  from  the  exalted  genius  of  one  man." 
But  this  test  of  itself  convinced  him  that  the  sacred 
seasons  of  the  Jews  originated  with  Moses.  "You 
behold,"  he  says,  "  a  structure  simple,  lofty,  perfect. 
All  proceeds  as  it  were  from  one  spirit,  and  represents 
one  idea,  and  is  carried  into  effect  by  what  resembles 
counters  exactly  matched  strung  upon  one  cord. 
And  it  is  no  mean  praise  that  prior  merely  natural 
feasts  are  wisely  not  abolished  nor  contemptuously 
cast  aside,  but  restored  and  filled  with  new  vigor  and 
invested  with  a  higher  meaning.  And  while  other 
ancient  nations  have  a  multitude  of  festivals  with  no 
obvious  connection,  these  are  few,  but  linked  together, 
illumined  with  one  light,  and  relating  to  one  supreme 
end  (every  one  a  Sabbath  of  Jehovah).  Whoever 
has  a  thorough  knowledge  of  these  festivals,  will  be 
persuaded  that  they  have  not  arisen  by  slow  degrees 
from  the  blind  impulse  of  external  nature,  nor  from 
the  history  of  the  people,  but  are  the  product  of  a 
lofty  genius." 

Other  critics,  however,  have  been  of  a  different 
mind,  as  appears  from  instances  already  recited.  It 
has  been  confidently  affirmed  that  there  are  variations 
in  the  laws  above  enumerated,  which  amount  to 
serious  and  irreconcilable  discrepancies.  These  dif- 
ferences affect  the  number  of  the  feasts,  the  names 
they  bore,  the  design  of  their  institution,  the  times 
when  they  were  held,  the  place  at  which  they  were 
celebrated,  the  accompanying  sacrifices  which  were 
offered,  and  in  general  the  characteristic  usages  con- 
nected with  their  observance.  It  has  been  maintained 
that  a  careful  comparison  of  these  laws  will  disclose 


52  THE  HISTORY  OF  OPINION 

the  fact  that  they  can  not  all  have  proceeded  fron.  a 
common  source ;  that  they  do  not  even  belong  to  any 
one  age,  least  of  all  to  the  Mosaic ;  that  they  sever- 
ally represent  notions  which  were  entertained  and 
customs  which  prevailed  at  widely  separated  periods  ; 
that  the  origin  and  history  of  these  institutions  can 
here  be  traced  through  successive  ages  and  through 
the  different  phases  which  they  assumed  from  time 
to  time,  from  the  simplicity  and  rudeness  of  their 
early  beginnings  to  the  elaborate  complexity  and 
completeness  which  they  ultimately  attained  ;  and 
that  the  facts  as  thus  deduced  from  a  thorough  sift- 
ing of  these  passages  themselves  and  a  comparison  ol 
them  with  the  course  of  Israel's  history,  are  very  dif- 
ferent from  the  view  which  is  superficially  yielded  by 
them,  and  which  is  traditionally  entertained  by  those 
who  believe  these  laws  to  have  emanated  from  Moses. 

Critical  opinions  upon  this  subject  have  passed 
through  several  successive  phases  in  the  course  of 
the  present  century  which  it  may  be  worth  while  here 
briefly  to  review.  The  first  serious  assault  upon  the 
genuineness  of  the  laws  respecting  the  sacred  feasts 
attributed  to  Moses  was  made  in  the  first  decade  of  this 
century,  in  the  year  1806.  This  was  by  De  Wettc,' 
then  privat-docent  in  Jena,  and  was  quite  in  the  spirit 
of  the  prevailing  rationalism,  the  confessed  offspring 
of  the  English  deism  of  the  preceding  century. 
This  maiden  publication  is  marked  by  a  shallowness 
and  a  bitterness  from  which  DeWette  himself  after- 
ward receded.  It  is  pervaded  by  the  idea  that  posi- 
tive religious  institutions  are  the  invention  of  fraud 

'  "  Beitrage  zur  Einleitung  in  das  Altc  Testament,"  I.,  p.  290  ff. 


RESPECTING  THE  HEBREW  FEASTS. 


53 


and  priestcraft,  and  not  only  dismisses  as  puerile  the 
notion  of  their  divine  appointment,  but  has  no  con- 
ception even  of  their  being  the  outgrowth  and  ex- 
pression of  man's  religious  nature.  He  seems  to 
consider  the  whole  case  settled  by  such  flippant  sug. 
gestions  as  that  Moses  and  the  Israelites  could  never 
have  held  feasts  and  sacrificial  meals  amid  the  priva- 
tions of  the  desert ;  and  as  to  founding  them  for  the 
future  he  had  something  of  more  consequence  to 
think  of  than  such  "  useless  and  unimportant  mat- 
ters." Moses  might  have  arranged  for  a  sacrificial 
meal  before  leaving  Egypt,  that  the  people  might 
have  enough  to  eat,  but  he  could  not  have  expected 
the  departure  or  he  would  have  arranged  for  pro- 
vision by  the  way.  He  further  points  out  what  he 
considers  inconsistencies  in  the  narrative  sufificient 
to  condemn  it.  The  Passover  is  at  one  time  rep- 
resented as  a  protective  against  the  plague  of  slay- 
ing the  first-born,  and  at  another  as  having  an  en- 
tirely different  design,  that  of  being  a  memorial  of 
this  event.  As  to  the  former,  Moses  could  not  have 
foreseen  the  plague  and  the  blood  would  have  proved 
unavailing.  As  to  the  latter,  it  is  senseless  to  imagine 
that  a  memorial  feast  was  instituted  during  or  even 
prior  to  the  occurrence  of  that  which  was  to  be  com- 
memorated. They  were  directed,  Ex.  12:11,  to  eat 
the  Passover  in  haste,  ready  for  instant  departure ; 
and  yet,  ver.  39,  they  were  taken  by  surprise  at  the 
order  to  leave  and  had  not  leavened  their  bread  or 
prepared  their  food.  They  were  bidden  to  eat  un- 
leavened bread,  12:8,  before  the  hasty  flight  which 
occasioned  it.     And  Moses  could  not  in  all  the  haste 


54 


THE  HISTORY  OF  OPINION 


and  confusion  of  leaving  Egypt  have  planned  for  the 
future  observance  of  the  feast  in  Canaan. 

The  Passover,  he  concludes,  was  originally  a  do< 
mestic  or  family  institution.  It  was  subsequently 
observed  at  the  various  sanctuaries  or  high  places 
dedicated  to  Jehovah  throughout  the  land.  The 
command  to  celebrate  the  Passover  and  other  feasts 
at  one  central  sanctuary  was  first  given  in  Deuter- 
onomy (ch.  i6),  which  was  a  forgery  of  the  reign  of 
Josiah.  2  Kings  23  :  22,  informs  us  that  it  had  not 
been  so  kept  before,  and  ver.  9  that  the  priests  of 
the  high  places  had  eaten  it,  not  at  Jerusalem,  but 
with  their  brethren.  Upon  which  it  is  only  necessary 
to  observe  here,  that  this  passage  in  Kings,  notwith- 
standing the  use  so  persistently  made  of  it  by  modern 
critics,  neither  states  nor  implies  that  Josiah's  Pass- 
over was  the  first  that  had  been  exclusively  celebrated 
in  Jerusalem.  It  simply  means  that  this  Passover 
was  observed  in  more  exact  compliance  with  the 
Mosaic  prescriptions  and  was  more  universally  at- 
tended  than  at  any  time  since  the  days  of  the  judges. 
And  the  statement,  ver.  9,  respecting  the  priests  of 
the  high  places  has  no  reference  to  the  Passover 
whatever ;  it  simply  declares  that  in  consequence  of 
the  irregularities  of  the  worship  in  which  they  had 
previously  ministered,  they  were  not  suffered  to  ap- 
proach the  altar  at  Jerusalem,  though  they  shared 
the  consecrated  provision  with  their  brethren. 

It  is  a  relief  to  pass  from  a  captious  rationalism  to 
the  more  earnest  spirit  of  Dr.  F.  C.  Baur,'  of  Tubin- 

*  Two  articles  in  the  "Studien  und  Kritiken,"  for  1S32.  On  the 
original  Signification  of    the  feast  of    the  Passover  and   the   rite 


RESPECTING  THE  HEBREW  FEASTS. 


55 


gen,  who  seeks  to  comprehend  and  appreciate  the 
Hebrew  institutions  by  studying  them  in  connection 
with  parallel  observances  in  other  religions.  A  new 
interest  had  been  awakened  in  the  symbolism  and 
mythology  of  ancient  nations  by  the  researches  of 
Creuzer  and  others,  who  had  traced  their  different 
beliefs  and  forms  of  worship  to  their  determining 
causes  in  the  religious  nature  and  necessities  of  man, 
variously  modified  by  their  natural  surroundings  and 
their  race  traditions.  And  it  was  obvious  to  suggest 
the  application  of  like  principles  to  the  ceremonial  of 
the  Jews.  The  comparative  treatment  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  not  indeed  altogether  new.  Several 
of  the  early  Christian  fathers  remark  upon  the  resem- 
blance between  the  rites  of  Jewish  and  of  heathen 
worship,  and  explain  it  by  a  divine  accommodation 
to  human  weakness.  The  people  accustomed  to  these 
usages  could  not  be  induced  to  abandon  them  at 
once ;  hence  they  were  retained  by  the  Most  High 
in  his  own  worship  in  a  modified  form  that  they 
might  be  the  more  readily  attracted  from  the  service 
of  idols  to  that  of  the  true  God.  The  Jewish  philos- 
opher Maimonides  adopts  the  same  view.  This  aspect 
of  the  case  was  copiously  discussed  and  illustrated  by 
an  immense  amount  of  classical  learning  in  the  last 
quarter  of  the  seventeenth  century  by  Sir  John 
Marsham^    and    Dr.    John    Spencer,    dean   of    Ely.* 

of  Circumcision  ;  and  The  Hebrew  Sabbath  and  the  national  Feasts 
of  the  Mosaic  Cultus. 

^  "Canon  Chronicus"  (London,  1672   ;  Leipsic,  i^^76,  pp.  192  ff. 

^  "  De  Legibus  Hebraeorum  Ritualibus,"  Cambridge,  1685,  pp. 
257  ff,,  598  fif. 


56  THE  HISTORY  OF  OPINION 

They  urge  that  the  institutions  of  Moses  were  partly 
borrowed  from  and  partly  established  in  opposition 
to  those  current  in  Egypt,  and  make  special  applica- 
tion to  the  feasts  as  well  as  to  other  religious  observ- 
ances in  detail.  Marsham  calls  attention  to  the  fact 
that  ancient  nations  generally  united  cessation  from 
labor  with  the  celebration  of  their  religious  festivals ; 
and  that  according  to  the  testimony  of  early  writers 
the  Egyptians  were  the  first  to  establish  temples, 
feasts  and  sacrifices,  and  that  in  particular  their  feasts 
were  older  than  the  time  of  Moses.  Spencer  main- 
tains that  a  lamb  was  slain  at  the  annual  Passover 
and  oxen  were  sacrificed  in  the  course  of  the  festival, 
because  these  animals  were  deemed  sacred  by  the 
Egyptians,  appealing  to  the  words  of  Tacitus  that 
*'  the  Jews  sacrifice  the  ram  in  contempt  of  Ammon, 
and  the  ox  which  the  Egyptians  call  Apis."  The 
Israelites  were  hence  to  learn  that  these  were  no 
divinities,  since  they  could  be  treated  so  contempt- 
uously. The  lamb  was  to  be  set  apart  four  days  in 
anticipation  of  this  service,  that  thus  they  might 
reject  the  Egyptian  superstition  deliberately  and 
solemnly.  Its  blood  was  to  be  smeared  upon  the  ex- 
terior door-posts  that  it  might  be  conspicuous  to  all. 
This  was  to  be  done  not  by  priests,  but  by  every 
father  of  a  family,  that  all  might  testify  their  abhor- 
rence of  a  worship  so  degrading.  It  was  not  to  be 
eaten  raw,  but  roasted  with  fire,  and  partaken  of  quietly 
within  doors ;  no  bone  was  to  be  broken  and  no  one 
was  to  go  out  at  the  door  of  his  house  until  the 
morning,  in  opposition  to  the  Bacchanalia,  in  which 
the  devotees  roamed  abroad,  in  their  wild  frenzy  de 


RESPECTING  THE  HEBREW  FEASTS.         57 

vouring  their  victims  raw  and  tearing  them  limb  from 
limb.  Moreover,  the  feasts  were  instituted  among 
the  Hebrews  as  a  counter  attrav:tion  to  those  existing 
among  the  Gentiles,  not  because  they  were  pleasing 
to  God  or  suited  to  his.  worship,  but  because  they 
were  adapted  to  the  childish  tastes  of  the  Israelites. 
Passover,  Pentecost  and  Tabernacles  were  appointed 
at  the  times  of  first-fruits,  harvest  and  ingathering, 
when  feasts  were  universally  observed  among  other 
nations,  that  Israel  might  thus  be  more  readily  in- 
duced to  observe  these  festiyals  which  were  instituted 
in  order  to  remind  them  of  God's  special  benefits  to 
their  nation. 

Hermann  Witsius,'  the  distinguished  professor  at 
Leyden,  entered  the  lists  in  opposition  to  these  views, 
maintaining  that  while  the  Israelites  did  repeatedly 
fall  into  the  superstitions  and  idolatries  of  surrounding 
nations,  yet  in  rites  approved  of  God  there  was  much 
less  agreement  than  had  been  claimed  between  the 
Egyptians  and  Hebrews.  Where  they  did  agree,  it 
was  mostly  in  matters  common  to  them  with  other 
cultivated  nations,  and  which  were  derived  by  all  alike 
from  the  same  source  of  either  reason  or  tradition. 
Where  they  agree  in  other  matters  than  these,  the 
probability  is  that  the  Egyptians  borrowed  from 
the  Hebrews  rather  than  vice  versa.  And  the  cere- 
monial institutions  were  not  established  by  way  of 
accommodation  to  a  refractory  people,  but  had  three 
principal  aims,  viz. :  to  be  (i)  a  toilsome  yoke  to  sub- 
due the  people  to  submissive  obedience ;  (2)  a  wall  of 
separation  from  other  nations ;  (3)  figures  and  shadows 

»  "  Aegyptiaca  "  (first  edition  1683),  Basle,  1739,  pp.  18,  47,  87,  145 


58 


THE  HISTORY  OF  OPINION 


of  spiritual  things.  In  regard  to  the  feasts  in  partic- 
ular he  claimed  that  festive  days  were  peculiar  to  no 
one  religion,  but  were  rooted  in  man's  social  nature ; 
and,  besides,  the  distinction  between  holy  days  and 
common  days  was  made  by  God  himself  at  the  begin- 
ning and  thence  derived  to  all  branches  of  the  human 
race,  even  the  rudest  and  most  barbarous.  And  fur- 
ther, that  the  Hebrew  feasts  stood  in  no  relation  what- 
ever to  those  of  Egypt,  inasmuch  as  the  former  were 
fixed  at  definite  periods  of  the  year,  while  the  latter 
according  to  the  testimony  of  Geminus  were  held  suc- 
cessively at  every  different  season,  since  the  priests 
from  religious  scruples  were  opposed  to  the  insertion 
of  intercalary  days. 

Both  the  parties  to  this  controversy  dealt  too  largely 
with  externals.  Too  much  stress  was  laid  upon  super- 
ficial resemblances.  Pagan  rites  as  well  as  those  of 
Israel  were  symbolical ;  they  were  significant  embod- 
iments of  religious  ideas,  which  they  served  to  awaken 
or  express.  And  it  was  this  significance  which  gave 
them  character.  It  was  no  discredit  to  the  religion 
of  Moses  and  no  impeachment  either  of  its  truth  or 
its  originality,  that  many  of  its  outward  forms  resem- 
bled those  of  other  nations,  when  the  connection  in 
which  they  stood  and  the  whole  spirit  of  the  system 
to  which  they  belonged,  determined  their  meaning 
and  tendency  to  be  quite  diverse,  as  diverse  as  the 
worship  of  nature  is  from  the  worship  of  one  true  liv- 
ing and  holy  God. 

Baur  recognizes  the  symbolic  character  of  the  rites 
with  which  he  deals,  but  fails  to  distinguish  between 
the  widely  divergent  systems  in  which  they  are  found 


RESPECTING  THE  HEBREW  FEASTS. 


59 


or  to  perceive  how  this  affects  the  signification  of 
every  individual  part  so  that  it  is  impossible  to  inter- 
pret the  one  correctly  by  the  other. 

According  to  his  view  a  lamb  was  slain  at  the  an- 
nual Passover  because  the  sun  was  then  entering  the 
constellation  Aries;  not,  as  Spencer  imagined,  to  put 
contempt  upon  the  god  Ammon,  for  the  Egyptians 
themselves  sacrificed  rams  in  the  spring.  A  consecrated 
animal  was  slain  at  the  season  when  nature  was  un- 
folding into  new  life,  to  signify  that  life  was  devel- 
oped out  of  death.  The  narrative  of  the  institution 
of  the  Passover  is  discredited ;  but  its  original  design 
is  inferred  from  the  statement  that  it  was  to  protect 
the  first-born  in  Israel  from  death,  and  that  in  mem- 
ory of  it  the  first-born  was  consecrated  unto  God. 
The  first-born  of  men  and  animals  was  holy  to  Jeho- 
vah. The  first-born  of  the  flock  or  the  herd  must 
be  sacrificed.  The  first-born  of  an  ass  must  be  slain 
or  redeemed.  The  first-born  of  men  must  be  re- 
deemed. The  rigorous  application  of  the  principle 
would  have  required  the  death  of  all,  first-born  chil- 
dren as  well  as  animals.  But  human  sacrifices  were 
abolished  as  abhorrent  even  in  most  pagan  nations, 
and  in  Israel  they  were  not  tolerated.  The  paschal 
lamb,  like  the  ram  offered  instead  of  Isaac,  was  a  sub- 
stitute for  the  first-born  and  was  hence  called  a 
''  Passover";  it  was  sacrificed  and  the  child  was  spared. 
It  was  offered  in  the  opening  spring.  As  nature  passes 
through  the  death  of  winter  to  the  life  of  spring,  so 
man  can  only  attain  a  new  life  by  a  sacrifice  devoted 
to  death.  He  is  entering  on  a  new  period  of  time 
and  the  old  guilt  should  be  purged  away.     It  was  de- 


6o  THE  HISTORY  OF  OPINION 

signed  to  expiate  the  past  and  secure  all  blessings  in 
the  future  for  the  household  thus  consecrated,  all  the 
members  of  which  accordingly  were  to  partake  of  it, 
but  no  stranger  was  to  eat  it  with  them.  As  a  family 
sacrifice  it  was  more  ancient  than  the  national  and 
civil  life  organized  by  Moses.  It  was,  however,  readily 
brought  into  connection  with  the  exodus ;  the  tran- 
sition from  the  old  year  to  the  new  and  the  protection 
granted  to  each  family  finding  their  apt  parallel  in 
Israel's  passing  into  this  new  epoch  of  its  history,  and 
the  collective  salvation  of  the  nation.  The  lamb  was 
roasted  as  the  nearest  approach  to  the  burnt-offering, 
which  its  primary  signification  demanded.  It  was 
eaten  with  bitter  herbs  and  unleavened  bread  to  sug- 
gest the  humiliation  appropriate  to  an  expiatory  ser- 
vice and  the  purity  of  the  new  period  uncontaminated 
by  the  leaven  of  the  old.  They  were  to  celebrate 
the  Passover  with  their  staff  in  their  hand  and  their 
shoes  on  their  feet,  not  to  indicate  haste,  for  the  haste 
with  which  they  were  thrust  out  was  quite  unex- 
pected ;  but  it  was  to  represent  them  as  fully  equipped, 
God's  organized  host,  ready  for  active  service  in  his 
cause.  The  analogy  of  the  Attic  Thargelia  leads  to 
the  further  suggestion  that  in  consequence  of  the  ex- 
piatory character  of  the  service  and  the  associations 
of  the  season,  executions  at  that  time  had  somewhat 
of  a  vicarious  virtue.  Hence  the  crucifixion  of  our 
Lord  and  the  two  thieves  at  the  Passover,  and  the  re- 
markable words  of  Caiaphas,  John  ii  :  49  ff.,  and  the 
execution  of  James  at  the  same  season,  Acts  12  :  2, 
and  the  threatened  execution  of  Peter;  hence  also 
the  custom  of  releasing  ore  prisoner  to  exemplify  the 


RESPECTING  THE  HEBREW  FEASTS.         6 1 

expiation  effected  by  the  punishment  of  the  rest,  John 
i8  :  39.  And  the  story  of  the  Israehtes  borrowing 
vessels  from  the  Egyptians  is  not  the  record  of  a  real 
occurrence,  but  arose  from  mimic  representations  of 
breaches  of  the  law,  atoned  for  by  the  Passover.  And 
then  the  other  feasts,  as  the  seasons  roll  around,  not 
only  express  gratitude  for  the  benefits  of  the  pro- 
ductive year,  but  also  for  the  national  blessings  spring- 
ing from  the  same  source  and  following  in  the  wake 
of  the  deliverance  from  Egypt. 

Suggestive  as  some  of  the  remarks  of  Baur  are,  his 
exposition  on  the  whole  is  a  failure,  because  the  He- 
brew rites  as  manifestations  of  the  religious  life  of 
Israel  can  only  be  correctly  explained  from  ideas  cur- 
rent in  that  system  to  which  they  belong.  An  inter- 
pretation drawn  from  the  nature-worship  of  heathen 
nations  will  necessarily  foist  upon  them  ideas  belong 
ing  to  a  totally  different  system  with  which  the 
religion  of  Israel  has  no  sympathy  or  connection. 
It  is  noteworthy,  however,  that  freely  as  he  deals 
with  the  original  narrative,  he  has  no  difificulty  in 
admitting  these  feasts  to  be  as  old  as  the  time  of 
Moses,  or  in  providing  a  solution  from  his  own  point 
of  view  for  the  discrepancies  urged  by  his  prede- 
cessors. 

The  next  mode  of  dealing  with  the  feast  laws  is 
that  of  the  literary  critics,  who  in  consequence  of 
alleged  differences  in  style  and  language,  refer  them 
severally  to  different  authors ;  these  are  assigned 
respectively  to  distinct  periods  and  are  supposed  to 
reflect  in  the  enactments  which  they  record  the  usage 
Qf  these  several  periods  or  at  least  what  the  framers 


62  THE  HISTORY  OF  OPINION 

of  these  laws  sought  to  bring  about.  Each  enact- 
ment is  thus  regarded  as  independent  of  all  the  rest 
If  one  law  contains  a  summary  statement  of  what  is 
more  explicitly  detailed  in  another,  the  former  is  not 
allowed  to  find  its  explanation  in  the  latter,  but  is 
held  to  represent  a  simpler  and  more  primitive  stage 
in  the  development  of  these  institutions.  If  one  is 
intended  for  the  guidance  of  the  people  generally, 
and  consequently  does  not  include  the  ceremonial 
which  is  minutely  described  in  another  prepared  for  the 
priests  at  the  sanctuary,  it  is  claimed  that  the  former 
represents  a  period  when  no  fixed  ceremonial  had  as 
yet  been  connected  with  the  observance,  but  the 
worshippers  were  left  to  their  own  free  and  spon- 
taneous action,  untrammeled  by  the  rigid  rules  of  a 
later  date.  Every  diversity  in  the  form  of  expres- 
sion, to  which  a  different  sense  can  by  possibility  be 
attributed,  is  pressed  to  the  utmost  and  held  to  be 
significant  of  a  varying  conception  of  the  festival. 
And  thus  laws  which  in  their  natural  and  obvious 
meaning  are  perfectly  harmonious  and  consistent  and 
mutually  supplementary,  are  isolated  and  set  at  vari- 
ance and  made  to  do  duty  in  some  scheme  of  the 
critic's  own  devising. 

It  will  not  be  necessary  here  to  indicate  the  various 
forms  which  the  hypothesis  of  the  successive  forma- 
tion of  the  Pentateuch  has  assumed  in  the  hands  of 
different  critics,  nor  to  show  in  detail  how  these  have 
influenced  their  conceptions  of  these  laws  which  are 
n  )w  before  us.  It  will  be  sufficient  to  distinguish  the 
hypotheses  of  this  school  of  critics  from  those  of  the 
most  recent  and  most  revolutionary  school  by  one 


RESPECTING  THE  HEBREW  FEASTS.        63 

clearly  marked  criterion.  The  former  regard  Deuter- 
onomy as  the  latest  book  of  the  Pentateuch,  while 
Graf,  Reuss  and  Wellhausen  with  their  followers 
maintain  that  the  Levitical  law,  or  as  they  denomi- 
nate it  the  Priest  Code,  is  later  still  than  Deuteronomy. 

Of  the  former  class  of  critics,  with  whose  methods 
and  results  we  are  now  particularly  concerned.  Gram- 
berg  and  Von  Bohlen  maintain  that  the  Hebrew  feasts 
are  long  posterior  to  the  time  of  Moses  ;  the  rest 
affirm  them  to  be  in  part,  at  least,  pre-Mosaic,  but 
moulded  and  shaped  by  Moses  in  accordance  with  his 
own  religious  system. 

Gramberg's  "  Critical  History  of  the  Religious 
Ideas  of  the  Old  Testament"  was  published  in  1829, 
in  which  he  undertakes  to  give  an  elaborate  treat- 
ment of  the  whole  subject.  His  strong  rationalistic 
bias,  however,  which  he  is  at  no  pains  to  conceal,  in- 
capacitates him  for  any  real  apprehension  of  the 
religion,  with  which  he  deals  in  a  purely  formal  and 
mechanical  manner,  and  which  he  seeks  to  explain 
upon  the  theory  of  priestcraft.  The  various  books 
of  the  Pentateuch  are  assigned  to  separate  dates  from 
the  reign  of  David  to  the  close  of  the  Babylonish 
exile,  and  their  institutions  or  enactments  are  com- 
pared with  the  statements  or  allusions  found  in  the 
historical  and  prophetical  books  of  the  corresponding 
period.  His  conclusion  is  that  worship  was  originally 
free  and  subject  to  no  statutory  regulations.  There 
were  no  fixed  feasts  except  such  as  were  of  a  domes- 
tic nature  and  involved  no  great  amount  of  sacrifices, 
such  as  the  weekly  Sabbath  and  the  harvest  festival 
whose   recurrence   was   determined   by   the    season. 


64  THE  HISTORY  OF  OPINION 

Jeroboam's  opposition  to  the  worship  at  Jerusalem 
first  led  the  priests  to  think  of  concentrating  all  the 
services  of  religion  at  this  sanctuary ;  and  with  this 
view  they  invented  new  feasts  and  multiplied  the 
rites  connected  with  them.  Subsequently  the  poets  * 
who  wrote  Exodus  and  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch 
referred  these  ordinances  which  the  priests  had  insti- 
tuted to  the  higher  authority  of  Moses ;  and  finally 
the  poetic  author  of  the  books  of  Chronicles  recast 
the  history  of  the  kingdom  so  as  to  create  the  im< 
pression  that  the  Levitical  ordinances  were  then  al- 
ready  obeyed.  The  people  may  have  had  feasts  in 
honor  of  Jehovah  from  their  first  settlement  in 
Canaan  :  but  there  is  no  certainty  that  even  the  most 
important  of  them  were  Mosaic,  and  at  any  rate  they 
were  not  observed  in  accordance  with  the  Mosaic  re- 
quirements until  the  days  of  Josiah ;  and  all  the 
feasts  prescribed  in  the  Pentateuch  were  not  in  exist- 
ence even  then.  The  account  of  the  origin  of  the 
Passover  given  in  Exodus  is  self-contradictory  and 
purely  mythical.  It  could  not  have  been  instituted 
in  view  of  their  expected  departure  from  Egypt,  for 
Pharaoh  had  not  given  them  permission  to  leave,  and 
this  permission  could  not  have  been  foreseen.  Exo- 
dus was  the  book  of  the  law  found  in  the  temple  in 
the  reign  of  Josiah:  and  the  observance  of  the  Pass- 
over dates  from  this  time.  The  Passover,  which  was 
celebrated  on  a  single  night,  and  the  feast  of  Unleaven- 
ed Bread,  which  lasted  seven  days,  were  at  first  distinct : 
but   they  are    blended    in    Leviticus   and    Numbers, 

'  These  writers  are  called  "  poets,"  because   they  deal,  not   with 
facts,  but  with  Actions  of  their  own  imagination. 


RESPECTING  THE  HEBREW  FEASTS,        65 

which  show  a  great  advance  in  the  development  of 
the  cultus.  The  feast  of  Weeks  was  plainly  an  inven- 
tion of  the  priests  that  they  might  obtain  an  early 
supply  of  the  first-fruits.  Tabernacles,  which  in  pre- 
vious laws  was  located  indefinitely  at  the  end  of  the 
year,  and  was  simply  the  feast  of  ingathering,  came 
to  be  fixed  on  a  particular  day  of  the  month,  and  to 
be  regarded  as  commemorative  of  the  march  through 
the  wilderness. 

He  finds  no  trace  of  the  Mosaic  feasts  in  Judges  or 
in  Samuel  :  the  feast  at  Shiloh,  Jud.  21  :  19,  does  not 
correspond  with  the  Levitical  requirements :  and  the 
yearly  pilgrimage  of  Samuel's  parents,  I  Sam.  i  :  3, 
was  a  voluntary  act  of  piety.  But  if  the  silence  on 
this  subject  had  been  as  profound  as  he  alleges,  the 
argument  from  this  to  their  non-existence  is  weakened 
by  his  admission  of  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  weekly 
Sabbath,  though  this  is  not  mentioned  from  the  time 
of  Moses  to  that  of  David,  i  Chron.  23:31,  or  if 
Chronicles  be  discredited,  to  the  time  of  Elisha,  2 
Kin.  4:23.  Hosea's  feasts,  2:11,  he  says,  were  not 
those  of  the  Mosaic  law,  but  were  shared  between 
Jehovah  and  Baal.  Isaiah  shows  the  first  trace  of 
annually  recurring  feasts,  29 :  i  (Heb.),  sometime  in  the 
reign  of  Hezekiah.  The  night  of  the  holy  solemnity, 
to  which  he  refers,  30 :  29,  could  not  have  been  the 
Passover,  though  it  may  have  been  the  harvest-feast : 
if  so,  however,  it  was  not  observed  in  accordance 
with  Mosaic  requirement. 

Von  Bohlen '  thinks  that  the  Sabbath  was  intro- 
duced about  the  time  of  Hezekiah  ;  and  the  Passover 

'  **  Die  Genesis  historisch-kriluch  erlautert,"  1835. 
5 


66  THE  HISTORY  OF  OPINION 

in  the  reign  of  Josiah.  This  was  borrowed  from  the 
great  spring  festival  of  the  ancient  world,  its  name 
denoting  the  passage  of  the  sun  into  the  vernal 
equinox.  Tabernacles  is  called,  Ex.  23  :  16,  the  feast 
of  ingathering  at  the  end  of  the  year,  which  implies 
a  division  of  time  that  only  became  current  after  the 
exile. 

Stahelin,  in  his  "  Critical  Investigations,"  published 
in  1835,  divided  the  Pentateuchal  laws  on  the  score 
both  of  affinities  of  language  and  of  enactments  into 
what  he  calls  the  first  and  the  second  legislation. 
The  former,  which  is  substantially  what  has  since 
been  denominated  the  Priest  Code,  was  given  by 
Moses  himself  to  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness. 
After  the  people  had  been  long  settled  in  Canaan, 
this  was  modified  into  the  second  legislation,  which 
embraces  both  Ex.  19-24,  the  Book  of  the  Covenant, 
and  Deuteronomy.  The  first  legislation  speaks  of 
five  annual  feasts :  the  second  of  only  three,  the 
feast  of  Trumpets  on  the  first  day  of  the  seventh 
month,  and  the  annual  Atonement  on  its  tenth  day 
having  been  dropped  since  Tabernacles  also  occurred 
in  the  same  month,  that  pilgrims  might  not  be  de- 
tained too  long  from  home.  The  first  legislation 
made  both  the  first  and  last  days  of  Passover  and  of 
Tabernacles  days  of  rest  or  sabbaths :  the  second  only 
their  seventh  day,  a  restriction  likewise  introduced 
for  the  convenience  of  pilgrims.  The  first  legislation 
forbids,  the  second  permits  to  boil  the  paschal  lamb. 
The  first  legislation  enjoins  holy  convocations  at  the 
annual  feasts,  the  expression  being  obscure  and  easily 
misunderstood  ;  the  second    explicitly  enjoins  three 


RESPECTING  THE  HEBREW  FEASTS.         6y 

yearly  pilgrimages  to  the  sanctuary,  and  adds  the  re- 
quirement that  they  must  not  appear  before  the 
Lord  empty.  In  the  second  legislation,  but  not  in 
the  first,  mention  is  made  of  *'  the  house  of  the 
Lord."  While  in  the  first  the  months  are  simply 
numbered,  the  second  legislation  defines  the  time  of 
the  Passover  as  in  ''  the  month  Abib." 

This  view  of  Stahelin,  while  apparently  at  the 
furthest  remove  from  the  hypothesis  of  Graf  and 
Wellhausen,  as  his  order  of  the  legislative  codes  is 
the  reverse  of  theirs,  nevertheless  approximates  it  in 
this,  that  he  places  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  and 
Deuteronomy  together  as  most  closely  related,  in- 
stead of  interposing  the  Levitical  law  between  them 
as  is  done  by  Hitzig,  Ewald  and  the  critics  of  this 
class  generally. 

Hitzig  ^  maintains  that  the  feast  of  Unleavened 
Bread  was  originally  observed  for  but  a  single  day 
or  rather  night,  and  that  on  the  first  of  Abib,  in 
memory  of  the  fact  that  they  were  forced  out  of 
Egypt  in  the  night  in  such  haste  that  they  had  not 
time  to  leaven  their  bread.  The  extension  of  the 
feast  to  seven  days  is  an  incongruity,  subsequently 
introduced,  when  the  celebration  was  transferred  to 
the  middle  of  the  month  and  was  divided  into  two 
distinct  services,  the  Passover  and  Unleavened  Bread. 
Later  still  these  were  fused,  and  the  Unleavened  Bread 
became  a  simple  addendum  to  the  Passover,  which 
commemorated  the  sparing  of  the  first-born,  while 
the  circumstance  which  originally  occasioned  the  use 

'  "  Ostern    und  Pfingsten,"   1837.      "  Ostern  und  Pfingsten  im 
Zweiten  Dekalog,"  1838. 


6s  THE  HIS  TOR  V  OF  OPINION 

of  unleavened  bread  sank  into  the  background  or  was 
lost  sight  of.  The  second  of  the  annual  feasts  was 
in  the  first  instance  called  ''  the  feast  of  Harvest  "  and 
occurred,  at  the  beginning  of  barley  harvest,  barley 
being  the  earliest  of  the  grains  to  ripen.  Next  it 
received  the  name  "  feast  of  Weeks  "  and  was  placed 
fifty  days  after  the  first  of  Abib,  one  day  for  each 
of  the  fifty  weeks  of  the  year,  which  brought  it  to  the 
beginning  of  wheat  harvest,  in  the  middle  of  the  har- 
vest season.  Finally  it  was  transferred  to  the  end  of 
wheat  harvest,  or  seven  weeks  reckoned  from  a  later 
time  of  beginning  than  before,  viz.,  from  the  time  of 
first  putting  the  sickle  to  the  corn. 

Leviticus  gives  the  immediate  and  organic  advance 
upon  the  oldest  prescriptions  in  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant.  Deuteronomy  is  based  upon  both  the 
preceding,  and  produces  a  new  result  from  a  mixture 
of  both,  among  other  things  simplifying  the  law  by 
doing  away  with  the  feast  of  Trumpets  and  day  of 
Atonement,  and  the  minute  and  burdensome  ritual  in 
the  spirit  of  the  reformatory  period  of  Josiah.  All 
this  he  has  no  difficulty  in  establishing  by  a  judicious 
application  of  the  critical  knife. 

One  of  the  best  replies  to  the  vagaries  of  Hitzig 
was  furnished  by  Bertheau,'  who,  though  he  began 
his  studies  under  a  different  impression,  was  brought 
by  his  investigations  to  the  conviction  that  the  laws 
of  the  Pentateuch,  and  particularly  those  relating  to 
the  feasts,  belong  to  one  connected  and  consistent 
scheme  of  legislation,  the  product  of  one  mind  and 

*  "Die  Sieben  Gruppen  Mosaischer  Gesetze,"  1840. 


RESPECTING  THE  HEBREW  FEASTS.        69 

of  one  period,  and  that  this  can  be  attributed  to  no 
other  than  to  Moses  in  the  wilderness. 

Ewald,'  who  yields  to  none  in  critical  acumen,  and 
whose  hypothesis  for  the  critical  dissection  of  the 
Pentateuch  is  certainly  as  elaborate  as  any,  was  never- 
theless satisfied  on  internal  grounds  that  the  Hebrew 
feasts  were  undoubtedly  Mosaic.  He  contests  the 
allegation  that  nothing  can  be  certainly  known  of 
the  life  and  institutions  of  Moses,  and  complains  that 
critics  generally  have  shown  more  zeal  in  discovering 
what  can  not  have  come  from  Moses,  than  in  ascer- 
taining what  is  really  from  him.  He  finds  nothing 
written  by  Moses  in  which  the  feasts  are  orderly 
treated.  He  conceives  that  the  feast  laws,  as  we  now 
have  them,  are  from  later  writers  ;  but  they  contain 
what  was  established  or  initiated  by  him,  only  modi- 
fied by  the  relations  of  later  times.  But  the  com- 
parison of  these  brings  to  light  that  which  attests  his 
superior  genius  and  can  only  have  come  from  him. 

He  traces  the  festivals  observed  by  different  na- 
tions to  three  different  sources.  They  may  be — i. 
Natural,  based  on  the  changing  seasons  of  the  year ; 
these  are  common  to  almost  all  ancient  nations.  2. 
Historical,  commemorating  past  events  of  importance 
or  national  interest ;  these  are  found  among  few  peo- 
ples comparatively  and  differ  according  to  the  genius 
and  history  of  each.  3.  Legislative,  when  some  su- 
perior mind  grasps  the  disconnected  and  discordant 
institutions  that  may  have  arisen,  and  infusing  a  new 
spirit  into  them,  brings  them  into  one  complete  and 

^  "  Die  Alterthiimer  des  Volkes  Israel,"  and  his  article  in  the 
"Zeitschrift  fiir  die  Kunde  des  Morgenlandes,"  1840. 


70  THE  HISTORY  OF  OPINION 

harmonious  system.  This  is  the  lofty  height  to 
which  the  sacred  seasons  of  the  Hebrews  were 
brought  by  Moses. 

Their  great  annual  feasts,  so  far  as  they  are  of 
natural  origin,  are  pre-Mosaic,  and  are  coincident  with 
the  festivals  of  the  vernal  and  autumnal  equinox 
observed  by  all  nations  of  antiquity.  In  the  fall  they 
expressed  their  joy  at  the  ingathering  of  fruits  by 
glad  processions  bearing  fruit  and  branches  of  trees. 
In  the  spring  they  had  a  twofold  service,  the  pres- 
entation of  the  first-fruits  of  the  opening  year  and 
an  expiatory  rite  for  cleansing  and  security  from 
the  perils  that  were  before  them.  This  expiatory 
service  was  retained  in  the  Passover,  whose  very  name 
attests  its  antiquity.  It  is  derived  from  a  verb 
which  was  no  longer  in  common  use  in  the  days  of 
Moses;  and  it  denotes  a  sacrifice  offered  to  obtain  a 
happy  passage,  not  through  a  sea  or  river,  but  through 
the  coming  year.  Its  rites  breathe  the  spirit  of  an 
earlier  time,  and  were  sanctioned  by  the  Mosaic  law 
on  account  of  their  venerable  antiquity.  It  was  slain 
by  the  head  of  each  family  at  his  own  house,  was  to 
be  eaten  by  every  male,  and  its  blood  was  sprinkled 
on  the  lintel  and  door-posts  to  consecrate  the  house, 
so  that  all  the  dangers  of  the  year  then  beginning 
might  be  averted  from  the  family.  It  was  to  be 
roasted,  this  being  the  most  ancient  style  of  cooking 
flesh  for  food ;  and  eaten  with  bitter  herbs,  as  a  more 
suitable  accompaniment  of  an  expiatory  service  than 
what  was  agreeable  to  the  taste.  It  was  a  lamb,  not 
from  antagonism  to  Egyptian  superstition  as  Spencer 
maintains,  nor,  as   Baur  contends,   because  the   sun 


RESPECTING  THE  HEBREW  FEASTS, 


71 


was  then  entering  the  constellation  Aries ;  for  there 
is  no  evidence  that  the  Jews  knew  anything  of  the 
signs  of  the  Zodiac  for  centuries  afterward ;  but  be- 
cause it  was  an  animal  easily  procured  and  of  proper 
size  for  the  domestic  meal.  The  use  of  unleavened 
bread  at  the  spring  festival  grew  out  of  the  fact  that 
the  bread  hastily  prepared  amidst  the  toils  of  harvest 
could  not  be  leavened. 

These  had  no  historical  associations  prior  to  the 
time  of  Moses.  But  what  he  chiefly  added,  was  the 
new  spirit  which  pervaded  the  whole  Mosaic  religion 
and  also  transformed  these  ancient  festivals.  Its  su- 
preme tenet  was  that  every  individual  and  the  whole 
people  should  dedicate  themselves  and  all  theirs  to 
God,  should  be  governed  by  his  will,  and  should  ob- 
tain their  rest  and  refreshment  in  what  is  pure  and 
holy.  As  this  is  hindered  by  the  cares  and  distrac- 
tions of  life,  sacred  periods  were  instituted  for  this 
end,  specimens  as  it  were  of  the  undisturbed  serenity 
of  the  divine  life,  in  which  men  might  for  the  time 
be  lifted  to  this  pure  and  perfect  state.  This  idea, 
though  not  wholly  wanting  among  other  people  of 
antiquity,  nowhere  appears  so  clearly  and  strongly  as 
among  the  Hebrews  under  Moses.  With  this  view 
he  instituted  the  Sabbath.  The  division  of  time  into 
weeks  was  known  to  many  ancient  nations,  but  the 
Sabbath  is  peculiar  to  Israel,  and  was  developed  into 
the  successive  cycles  of  the  Sabbatical  year  and  the 
year  of  Jubilee.  And  the  annual  feasts  were  septen- 
ary periods  and  in  various  ways  bear  the  impress  of 
the  number  seven.  There  were  two  great  festivals 
which  were  precisely  balanced  by  giving  to  each  the 


72  THE  HISTORY  OF  OPINION 

same  three  constituents,  symmetrically  adjusted,  % 
fore-feast,  the  feast  proper,  and  an  after-feast.  They 
were  placed  respectively  at  the  full  moon  in  the  first 
and  the  seventh  month,  the  first  month,  that  is,  in 
each  half  of  the  year.  In  each  there  was  first  a  fore- 
feast  consisting  of  an  expiation  on  the  lOth  day;  in 
the  first  month  the  Passover  lamb  was  selected,  and, 
as  Ewald  thinks,  originally  slain  on  that  day  to  avert 
all  coming  evil ;  in  the  seventh  month,  the  day  of 
Atonement,  of  higher  intensity  and  retrospective,  to 
expiate  the  sins  of  the  past,  not  those  of  a  family 
merely,  but  of  the  whole  people.  Then  followed  on 
the  15th  the  feast  itself,  lasting  seven  days — the  feast 
of  Unleavened  Bread  in  the  one  case,  and  of  Taber- 
nacles in  the  other.  Finally  an  additional  day  as  an 
after-feast,  the  feast  of  Weeks  at  the  end  of  harvest, 
and  the  day  following  Tabernacles,  which  concluded 
the  festivals  of  the  year. 

Von  Lengerke '  adopts  substantially  the  views  of 
Ewald,  making  the  feasts  to  have  all  been  appointed 
and  arranged  by  Moses,  though  partly  based  on  pre- 
Mosaic  festivals. 

Hupfeld^  discovers  much  diversity  and  many  in- 
consistencies in  the  feast  laws ;  and  in  none  of  these, 
even  the  most  ancient,  is  the  true  origin  and  ground 
of  these  festivals  correctly  stated.  While  the  festivals 
themselves  are  Mosaic,  the  laws,  as  we  now  have 
them,  were  committed  to  writing  by  different  persons 

'  "  Kenaan,  Volks-und  Religionsgeschichte  Israels,"  1844. 

*  ''  De  vera  et  primitiva  festorum  ratione  apud  Hebraeos,"  3  parts, 
issued  in  1851,  1852  and  1S58,  respectively,  with  an  appendix  in 
1865. 


RESPECTING  THE  HEBREW  FEASTS.        y^^ 

long  after,  when  their  real  reason  had  been  obliter- 
ated  and  lost ;  this  can  now  only  be  recovered  by  the 
study  of  the  feasts  themselves.  These  sacred  rites, 
which  require  for  their  proper  observance  a  peaceful 
and  flourishing  condition  of  public  affairs,  became  in 
the  calamitous  and  unsettled  state  of  things  after  the 
occupation  of  Canaan  disturbed  and  obsolete  beyond 
other  institutions;  so  that  there  is  almost  no  trace 
of  their  having  been  celebrated  in  accordance  with 
the  requirements  of  the  law  at  any  subsequent  period 
of  the  Biblical  history,  whether  before  the  Babylonish 
exile  or  after  it. 

There  was  according  to  Hupfeld  but  one  agrarian 
feast  properly  speaking,  that  of  Tabernacles  or  In- 
gathering, and  one  of  consecration,  that  of  Unleavened 
Bread.  The  latter  was  only  improperly  called  a  feast. 
It  was  a  solemnity,  but  not  a  period  of  festive  joy, 
like  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  which  is  hence  often 
spoken  of  as  "  the  feast "  by  way  of  eminence,  as 
though  it  stood  alone, — Lev.  23  :  39,  41,  i  Kin.  8  :  2, 
65  (whence  2  Chron.  5  :  3,  7  :  8,  9),  i  Kin.  12  :  32, 
Ezek.  45  :  25,  Neh.  8  :  14,  Ps.  81  :  3.  It  had  two  pre- 
liminary antecedents,  standing  in  the  same  prepar- 
atory relation  to  it,  as  the  Passover  to  the  feast  of 
Unleavened  Bread,  and  they  rose  by  three  gradations 
to  the  climax.  There  was  first,  at  the  beginning  of 
harvest,  the  presentation  of  a  sheaf  of  the  first- 
fruits,  with  appropriate  sacrifices,  though  the  day  was 
not  kept  holy.  Secondly,  at  the  close  of  harvest  two 
loaves  were  presented  with  augmented  sacrifices  and 
the  day  was  observed  as  a  Sabbath.  Finally,  after 
the  fruits  were  all  gathered  in,  the  feast  proper  waa 


74  THE  HISTORY  OF  OPINION 

celebrated  for  seven  days,  the  customary  length  of  a 
sacred  period,  and  was  crowned  with  the  closing  so- 
lemnity of  the  eighth  day. 

When  the  calendar  was  changed  so  that  the  month 
of  the  Exodus  became  the  first  in  the  year,  that  of 
Tabernacles  was  counted  the  seventh.  But  from  the 
earlier  laws,  Ex.  23  :  16,  it  appears  that  the  year  orig- 
inally began  with  the  autumnal  equinox,  and  the  feast 
of  ingathering  then  occurred  ''  in  the  end  of  the 
year,"  or  as  Hupfeld  renders  it,  "■  after  the  end  of  the 
year,"  that  is,  in  the  first  month  of  the  new  year.  It 
was  with  this  month  also  that  the  Sabbatical  year  and 
the  year  of  Jubilee  began,  the  entrance  of  the  latter 
being  formally  announced  by  the  blowing  of  trumpets 
throughout  the  land.  The  first  day  of  this  month, 
which  was  observed  as  a  Sabbath,  and  upon  which 
the  trumpets  were  also  to  be  blown,  was  accordingly 
the  opening  of  the  new  year.  And  the  day  of  Atone- 
ment on  the  tenth  of  the  month  was  designed  to  effect, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  year,  an  expiation  for  the  sins 
of  the  past,  that  thus  as  a  holy  people  they  might  be 
prepared  for  their  feast  of  thanksgiving,  and  in  it  con- 
secrate the  produce  of  their  land  to  God  the  giver. 

Thus  reckoning,  the  month  of  the  Passover  will  be 
the  seventh,  at  the  middle  or  culmination  of  the  year, 
and  its  services  are  an  advance  upon  those  held  at 
the  beginning.  Passover  was  not  at  first  a  commem- 
oration of  the  exodus.  And  it  was  not  an  expiatory 
offering,  but  an  act  of  communion  and  of  consecra- 
tion. Unleavened  bread  was  the  food  of  priests.  The 
father  of  each  household  performed  a  priestly  func- 
tion in  slaying  the  lamb,  which  had  the  same  signifi- 


RESPECTIXG   THE  HEBREW  FEASTS. 


75 


cance  as  the  ram  of  consecration  offered  for  Aaron 
and  his  sons,  when  they  were  admitted  to  the  priest- 
hood. The  sprinkHng  of  the  hntels  and  door-posts 
was  with  the  same  intent  as  the  sprinkHng  of  the  altar 
and  the  sanctuary  on  the  day  of  Atonement ;  it  hal- 
lowed the  house.  The  aim  of  the  day  of  Atonement 
was  negative,  the  removal  of  sin,  a  general  expiation 
on  behalf  of  the  whole  people,  such  as  was  common 
among  other  nations.  That  of  the  Passover  was  posi- 
tive, sacerdotal  communion  with  God,  lifting  each 
head  of  a  family  with  his  entire  household  to  the 
priestly  dignity,  making  each  and  all  priests  unto  God, 
a  service  wholly  unique  and  peculiar  to  Israel. 

The  seventh  month,  upon  this  enumeration,  was 
characterized  by  the  consecration  both  of  the  people 
and  of  the  land  to  God ;  the  devotion  of  the  first-born, 
which  was  associated  with  or  superseded  by  the  Pass- 
over, and  the  offering  of  the  first-fruits,  in  two  suc- 
cessive acts  of  presentation,  fifty  days  apart,  corre- 
sponding to  the  two  harvests  of  barley  and  of  wheat. 
In  the  seventh  year  not  the  first-fruits  only,  but  all 
that  the  land  yielded  was  given  unto  God.  In  the 
fiftieth  year  all  alienated  properties  and  all  bondmen 
were  restored  gratuitously,  or  rather  were  surrendered 
unto  God  as  sovereign  proprietor  and  lord  of  both 
the  land  and  the  people,  who  grants  to  those  who 
hold  possessions  under  him  no  right  of  absolute  own- 
ership, but  only  of  temporary  use. 

Knobel '  is  more  disposed  to  look  to  the  historical 
statements  respecting  the  origin  of  the  feasts  for  theii; 

'  "Die  Biicher  Exodus  und  Leviticus"  (1857),  especially  his  pre 
Ijminary  remarKS  on  Lev.  ch.  23. 


76  THE  HISTORY  OF  OPINION 

explanation  than  any  of  his  critical  predecessors;  who 
have  preferred  to  ignore  these  statements  entirely. 
Yet  even  he  does  not  venture  the  length  of  giving 
full  credence  to  the  Mosaic  narrative.  That  perhaps 
would  have  been  quite  uncritical.  The  Passover,  he 
infers  from  the  history,  was  borrowed  from  no  pre- 
existing custom.  It  was  not  a  nature  festival,  cele- 
brating the  transition  from  winter  to  spring,  nor  an 
expiation  offered  to  gain  a  happy  transit  through  the 
year  which  had  just  begun,  but  a  sacrifice  appointed 
by  Moses  in  the  immediate  prospect  of  leaving  Egypt, 
to  obtain  the  help  and  protection  of  their  fathers' 
God.  It  may  be  compared  with  burnt-offerings  sac- 
rificed on  the  eve  of  great  undertakings  to  obtain  the 
divine  aid  in  their  accomplishment.  As  the  enter- 
prise proved  successful  the  ordinance  continued  to  be 
celebrated  in  memory  of  the  heavenly  assistance  which 
had  been  vouchsafed  to  them.  In  later  times  it  came 
to  be  specially  associated  in  the  minds  of  the  people 
with  the  divine  interposition  in  sending  those  plagues 
upon  Egypt,  which  rendered  their  departure  practi- 
cable, while  sparing  Israel  from  their  effects :  and  it 
was  hence  called  the  Passover.  At  a  still  later  time 
the  last  plague  of  pestilence  was  converted  into  a 
miraculous  slaying  of  the  first-born  ;  and  then  the 
Passover  and  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  were  ex- 
plained with  particular  reference  to  it.  But  this  is  a 
departure  from  the  truth  of  the  history.  All  which 
shows  how  easy  it  is  for  a  critic  to  believe  just  as 
much  or  just  as  little  as  he  pleases  of  a  historical  rec- 
ord. The  feasts  of  Unleavened  Bread,  of  Harvest  and 
of  Ingathering  were  previously  existing  festivals  which 


RESPECTING  THE  HEBREW  EEASTS. 


77 


Moses  adopted  and  into  which  he  infused  a  new  spirit. 
Passover,  the  day  of  Atonement,  and  the  Sabbath  were 
original  with  Moses.  In  general  the  Elohistic  legis- 
lation faithfully  reproduces  the  institutions  of  Moses; 
the  Jehovistic  contains  modifications  of  a  later  age. 
Leviticus  enjoins  no  pilgrimages ;  accordingly  in  the 
early  periods  of  the  history,  attendance  upon  the  fes- 
tivals was  dependent  on  each  one's  free  will,  though 
pilgrimages  were  the  prevailing  practice.  Later  legis- 
lators, as  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  and  Deuter- 
onomy, erect  this  custom  into  a  law,  prescribing  that 
every  male  must  appear  at  the  sanctuary,  three  times 
in  the  year,  at  the  great  annual  feasts. 

Dillmann  ^  concludes  from  his  critical  principles 
that  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  dates  from  the  period 
of  the  Judges,  the  Levitical  code  from  the  time  of 
Solomon,  and  Deuteronomy  from  a  period  later  still. 
But  although  these  laws,  in  the  form  in  which  we 
have  them,  are  supposed  to  belong  to  various  epochs 
subsequent  to  the  Mosaic  age,  he  nevertheless  regards 
the  feasts  as  Mosaic  or  pre-Mosaic ;  and  to  the  objec- 
tion drawn  from  the  infrequent  mention  of  them  in 
the  history,  he  replies  that  there  are  as  many  refer- 
ences to  them  as  we  have  any  right  to  expect  in  so 
brief  a  narrative.  Dillmann  adopts  the  grouping  of 
the  feasts  proposed  by  Ewald,  and  agrees  with  him 
in  supposing  that  the  annual  feasts  were  based  upon 
the  spring  and  autumn  festivals  common  to  all  ancient 
nations.  These  were  probably  observed  by  the  Israel- 
ites before  the  time  of  Moses,  possibly  with  some  of 
the  same  usages  as  in  later  times,  such  as  the  use  of 

'  Art.  Feste  in  Schenkel's   "  Bibel-Lexicon  "  (1869),  Vol   II.,   pp 
265-272. 


78  THE  HISTORY  OF  OPINION 

unleavened  bread  and  sacrifice.  Moses  rearranged 
the  feasts  and  gave  them  a  new  meaning.  By  con- 
verting the  spring  festival  into  a  commemoration  of 
the  deliverance  from  Egypt,  the  time  of  its  observ- 
ance came  to  be  definitely  fixed,  the  slaying  and  eat- 
ing of  the  iamb  became  a  symbol  of  God's  delivering 
grace  and  a  means  of  appropriating  it,  and  the  un- 
leavened bread  was  indicative  of  the  purity  of  God's 
redeemed  people.  Its  old  relation  to  the  change  of 
seasons  was  lost  sight  of,  except  in  so  far  as  it  be- 
came a  feast  of  thankful  consecration  of  the  harvest  ; 
and  as  in  the  climate  of  Palestine  it  corresponded 
with  the  first  ripening  grain,  its  closing  day  was  put 
seven  weeks  later  when  the  harvest  was  ended,  thus 
assuming  almost  the  character  of  a  separate  and  in- 
dependent festival.  The  time  of  the  autumn  feast 
had  previously  fluctuated  with  the  character  of  the 
season.  But  as  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  was 
now  established  in  the  first  month,  that  "of  Ingather- 
ing was  placed  in  the  seventh  or  sabbatic  month,  to- 
gether with  the  day  of  Atonement  as  a  suitable 
preparation  for  it,  and  a  final  day  as  the  solemn  con- 
clusion of  the  festivals  of  the  year.  That  but  three 
festivals  are  spoken  of  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
and  in  Deuteronomy,  while  the  Levitical  law  names 
seven,  is  in  his  judgment  no  discrepancy,  and  is  not 
to  be  explained  by  the  gradual  increase  in  the  number 
actually  observed,  but  by  the  fact  that  in  the  one  case 
reference  is  had  to  the  three  pilgrimage  feasts  exclusive- 
ly, and  in  the  other  to  additional  solemnities  as  well. 
More    recently   the    professor'   appears    to    have 

'"Die  BUcher   Exodus  und  Leviticus  "  (1880).    See  particularly 
on  Lev.  23. 


RESPECTING  THE  HEBREW  FEASTS. 


79 


changed  his  mind  with  regard  to  the  Mosaic  origin  of 
the  two  agricultural  feasts  of  Weeks  and  Tabernacles, 
and  to  have  adopted  the  opinion  that  these  can  only 
have  been  introduced  after  the  occupation  of  Canaan  ; 
and  that  the  time  of  Tabernacles  may  at  first  have 
been  regulated  by  the  actual  ingathering  of  the  fruits, 
and  so  have  varied  with  the  locality  and  with  the 
season ;  only  it  must,  at  least  in  the  region  about 
Jerusalem,  have  been  fixed  in  the  seventh  month  by 
or  before  the  time  of  Solomon,  from  the  express 
mention  of  it  at  the  dedication  of  the  temple. 

This  subject  has  further  been  treated  from  an  ar- 
chaeological point  of  view,  as  by  De  Wette  himself, 
who  in  his  "  Archaeology,'*  published  in  successive 
editions  in  1814,  1830  and  1842,  divides  the  religious 
institutions  of  Israel  into  pre-Mosaic,  Mosaic  and 
post-Mosaic,  and  classes  as  Mosaic  all  those  which  are 
ordained  by  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  ; — also  by 
Winer,^  who  finds  in  the  thorough  and  organic  rela- 
tion of  the  feasts  to  one  another  a  voucher  for  their 
contemporaneous  Mosaic  origin  ;  and  who  says  of  the 
critical  theories  upon  this  subject  that  if  every  one  is 
to  arrange  the  materials  of  Biblical  Archaeology  in 
accordance  with  his  own  easily  framed  hypothesis  of 
the  composition  of  the  books  of  the  Bible,  this  sci- 
ence will  soon  be  destitute  of  all  historical  basis. 

The  Mosaic  Legislation  has  also  been  studied  sym- 
bolically, and  that  in  the  most  exhaustive  manner  by 
Bahr,^  and  with  the  like  result.    He  finds  one  consist- 

'"Biblisches  Real-Worterbuch."  Third  edition,  1847,  Art.  Feste, 
Pascha,  etc. 

■•^  "  Symbolik  des  Mosaischen  Cultus,"  Vol.  II.,  1839.  Second 
edition,  Vol.  I.,  1874,  pp.  i,  2. 


80  THE  HEBRlL  IV  FEASTS, 

ent  and  harmonious  system  of  religious  ideas  embod- 
ied in  the  whole,  generically  distinct  from  those  ol 
every  other  people  ;  all  is  pervaded  by  one  spirit,  and 
the  outgrowth  of  one  conception,  showing  that  the 
entire  ceremonial  law  is  the  product  of  one  mind 
and  the  historical  evidence  is  in  his  view  yet  unshaken 
amid  all  the  diversity  of  opposing  hypotheses  that 
this  is  the  mind  of  Moses. 

We  are  thus  brought  in  our  survey  of  various  opin- 
ions to  the  Wellhausen  hypothesis  respecting  the 
feasts  of  Israel,  which  claims  in  consequence  of  their 
agricultural  character  that  they  were  borrowed  from 
the  Canaanites  after  Israel's  occupation  of  their 
country,  and  that  by  slow  degrees  in  the  course  of 
many  centuries  they  grew  up  to  the  completed  form 
represented  in  the  Pentateuchal  laws. 

It  is  sufficient  now  to  say  as  the  result  of  our  in- 
quiry into  the  previous  treatment  of  this  subject  that 
this  hypothesis  stands  opposed  to  the  conclusion, 
which  with  a  surprising  degree  of  uniformity  we  have 
found  to  be  reached  by  those  who  have  approached 
its  study  from  so  many  and  such  widely  different 
points  of  view ;  and  by  those  likewise  who  certainly 
can  not  be  charged  with  undue  deference  to  traditional 
opinions  and  who  do  not  scruple  in  the  most  uncere- 
monious manner  to  set  aside  the  statements  of  the 
Pentateuch  itself.  For  I  have  purposely  refrained 
from  adducing  the  sentiments  of  those  who  like 
Frederick  Ranke,  Hengstenberg,  Havernick,  Drechs- 
ler,  Welte,  Baumgarten,  Kurtz,  F.  W.  Schultz,  Oehler, 
Keil  and  Bachmann,  accept  the  historical  testimony 
of  the  Pentateuch  as  unquestionably  true. 


III. 

THE     UNITY     OF    EXODUS, 
CHAPTERS  12,  13. 


III. 

THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CHAPTERS  12,  la 

IT  would  seem  as  though  the  inquiry  into  the  origin 
and  design  of  the  Hebrew  festivals  should  find  a 
prompt  and  easy  answer.  We  have  what  professes 
to  be,  and  from  the  earliest  times  has  been  believed 
to  be,  a  contemporaneous  record  upon  this  subject 
from  the  pen  of  the  great  legislator  himself.  It  con- 
tains a  narrative  of  the  institution  of  the  Passover  at 
the  time  of  Israel's  departure  out  of  Egypt  and  of  the 
circumstances  which  led  to  its  institution.  It  also 
records  the  enactments  at  Sinai  and  on  the  plains  of 
Moab,  in  which  the  remaining  feasts  were  added  to 
the  Passover  and  the  manner  of  their  observance  was 
prescribed. 

It  is  alleged,  however,  that  neither  the  narrative 
nor  the  enactments  are  Mosaic;  that  they  were  in 
fact  produced  long  posterior  to  the  time  of  Moses,  so 
long  that  they  can  yield  no  authentic  information. 
The  narrative  may  represent  the  current  belief  of  the 
period  when  it  was  written,  and  the  enactments  set 
forth  the  usages  of  the  time  to  which  they  belong. 
But  the  facts  so  minutely  stated  in  the  one  can  not  be 
reasonably  regarded  as  facts  at  all ;  and  the  authority 
of  the  legislator  claimed  for  the  other  is  altogethei 

without  foundation. 

(83) 


84  THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CM.  12,  13. 

These  startling  assertions  rest  upon  three  proposi- 
tions, which  it  is  affirmed  can  be  established. 

1st.  That  the  records  in  question  can  not  bear  the 
test  of  a  searching  literary  analysis. 

2d.  That  the  different  passages  relating  to  this  sub- 
ject in  the  Pentateuch  do  not  give  a  uniform  and  con- 
sistent representation  of  the  feasts  as  they  existed  at 
any  one  time,  but  differ  so  materially  that  they  must 
represent  successive  stages  in  their  growth. 

3d.  That  the  same  stages  of  development  which  are 
traceable  in  the  laws  can  be  discovered  at  successive 
periods  of  the  history. 

It  will  be  necessary  to  give  attention  to  these 
several  points  in  their  order.  The  one  first  named 
will  occupy  us  on  the  present  occasion.  We  proceed 
accordingly  to  inquire  into  the  literary  character  of 
the  documents  with  which  we  are  dealing.  The 
critics  affirm  that  they  are  not  of  one  tenor  and  style 
and  can  not  all  have  proceeded  from  the  same  author ; 
but  that  on  the  basis  of  various  literary  criteria  they 
may  with  a  good  degree  of  certainty  be  assigned  to 
distinct  writers ;  that  they  are  further  defaced  by  al- 
terations and  interpolations  of  a  more  or  less  serious 
character,  which  are  capable  of  being  detected  and  re- 
moved ;  and  that  some  of  them  are  of  a  composite 
nature  and  are  capable  of  being  separated  into  their 
primary  constituents.  When  this  has  been  done  all 
that  is  now  inconsistent  and  perplexing  will,  it  is  said, 
become  intelligible  and  clear:  and  the  testimony 
which  may  be  gathered  from  them  in  relation  to  the 
true  origin  of  the  Hebrew  feasts  will  be  very  different 
from  that  which  they  appear  to  render  in  their  present 
form. 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.  85 

In  proceeding  to  examine  these  critical  methods 
and  results  some  preliminary  observations  should  first 
be  made. 

I.  The  supernatural  facts  asserted  or  involved  in 
the  Mosaic  record  afford  no  good  reason  for  a  sum- 
mary denial  of  the  truth  of  its  statements  or  the 
genuineness  of  its  legislation.  God's  intervention  on 
behalf  of  his  oppressed  people  in  Egypt  in  fulfilment 
of  the  promises  made  to  their  fathers  was  indeed  on 
the  grandest  scale.  But  the  occasion  was  worthy  of 
the  interference.  If  the  true  religion  was  to  be  estab- 
lished and  perpetuated  among  the  people  in  the  midst 
of  abounding  paganism,  degradation  and  corruption, 
it  was  fitting  that  its  introduction  should  be  marked 
by  such  displays  of  his  delivering  might  and  his  divine 
glory,  as  should  demonstrate  the  infinite  superiority 
of  Jehovah  to  the  idols  of  the  nations.  The  assump- 
tion that  the  miraculous  is  necessarily  false  and  is  to 
be  accounted  for  as  a  legend  of  later  times  has  been 
the  guiding  principle  more  or  less  openly  professed  of 
most  of  the  critics,  and  with  all  the  show  of  reasoning 
in  defence  of  their  hypotheses  this  has  plainly  been  in 
the  majority  of  instances  the  determining  considera- 
tion. Such  an  assumption  is  a  pure  begging  of  the 
question  and  can  not  be  conceded ;  and  any  super- 
structure built  upon  it  is  as  insecure  as  the  founda- 
tion on  which  it  rests.  The  unfriendly  animus  of  an 
opponent  does  not  indeed  absolve  us  from  candidly 
examining  what  he  has  to  adduce,  and  accepting  any 
elements  of  truth  which  it  may  contain  and  any  con- 
clusions which  are  fairly  proved.  But  we  may  be  ex- 
cused  if  we  are  in  no  haste  to  commit  ourselves  im- 


g6  THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH,  12.  13. 

plicitly  to  such  guidance  or  to  chase  every  ignis  fatuui 
without  knowing  whither  it  may  lead  us. 

2.  A  second  observation  is  that  confident  assertion 
does  not  make  up  for  deficiency  of  argument.  Critics 
do  not  hesitate  to  take  the  most  unwarranted  Hberties 
with  well-accredited  records  and  established  historical 
facts.  By  a  stroke  of  their  pen  they  transform  the 
text  before  them,  adding  to  or  erasing  from  it  at 
pleasure  to  make  it  conform  to  their  own  precon- 
ceived notions,  regulating  the  facts  by  their  hypoth- 
esis instead  of  adapting  their  hypothesis  to  the  facts. 
It  is  not  without  reason  that  Delitzsch  speaks  of  "  the 
omnipotence  which  resides  in  the  ink  of  a  German 
scholar."  But  baseless  possibilities  are  not  at  once 
transformed  into  certainties  or  even  probabilities  be- 
cause it  may  suit  the  exigencies  of  a  critical  hypothesis 
so  to  regard  them. 

We  proceed  to  consider  the  questions  raised  by  the 
critics  respecting  the  literary  form  of  the  feast  laws. 
This  will  require  us  to  occupy  ourselves,  perhaps  to  a 
tedious  extent,  with  minute  questions  of  the  form  of 
expression  and  the  connection  of  clauses  and  para- 
graphs, since  this  is  the  realm  within  which  the  dis 
cussion  necessarily  moves.  And  I  hope  that  I  may 
succeed  in  making  at  least  the  nature  of  the  objec- 
tions and  the  character  of  the  defence  clear  to  those 
who  will  favor  me  with  their  patient  attention,  though 
the  subject  is  better  suited  for  private  study  than  for 
public  discourse. 

The  first  passage  that  presents  itself  is  the  narrative 
of  the  institution  of  the  Passover  in  Ex.,  rh.  I2,  13. 
The  last  plague  of  Egypt,  the  slaying  of  the  first- 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.  8/ 

born,  converted  Pharaoh's  obstinate  refusal  to  let  the 
people  go  into  the  greatest  urgency  for  their  speedy 
departure.  Israel  was  protected  from  the  plague  by 
the  blood  of  the  Passover  lamb  on  the  lintels  and 
door-posts  of  their  houses  :  and  the  Passover  thence- 
forward was  a  memorial  of  this  great  deliverance  and 
their  being  led  forth  from  Egyptian  bondage. 

The  history  of  the  Exodus  here  recorded  is  the 
key  of  the  whole  position.  If  this  is  a  bona  f^de 
record,  the  Passover  is  beyond  controversy  Mosaic, 
and  owes  its  institution  to  the  circumstances  here 
recorded.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  this 
record  has  been  most  persistently  and  vehemently 
assailed,  and  that  it  has  been  pronounced  false  and 
mythical.  It  is  afifirmed  that  the  Passover  was  not 
instituted  to  commemorate  the  events  of  the  exodus, 
but  that  these  are  legends  invented  to  account  for  an 
institution  already  existing.  These  events  did  not 
give  rise  to  the  Passover;  but  the  Passover  gave  rise 
to  the  storv  of  these  supposed  events. 

Thus  Wellhausen  : '  "  The  custom  (of  observing  the 
Passover)  is  not  barely  accounted  for  in  a  historical 
way,  but  in  its  origin  it  is  itself  converted  into  a  his- 
torical fact  and  then  based  on  its  own  original.  The 
shadow  which  is  elsewhere  cast  only  by  an  independ- 
ent historical  occurrence,  here  becomes  a  substance 
and  casts  itself."  Or  as  it  is  tersely  expressed  by 
Dr  Robertson  Smith,^  when  speaking  generally  of 
passages  of  this  description,  it  is  not  -  actual  his- 
-'Geschichte  des  Israels,"  I.,  p.  105.  Prolegomena  (English 
Translation),  p.  102. 

2  "The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,"  p.  320. 


88  THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13 

tory  ",  It  is  "  a  law  in  narrative  form."     De  Wette 
more  briefly  still  calls  it  "a  juridical  myth." 

The  account  in  these  chapters  is  a  continuous, 
closely  connected  and  regularly  unfolding  narrative 
having  all  the  air  of  truthfulness,  self-consistent  and 
suitable  to  the  occasion  described. 

As  the  time  approached  for  the  infliction  of  the 
last  plague,  the  LORD  gave  to  Moses  and  Aaron, 
12  :  1-13,  detailed  directions  for  the  observance  ol 
the  Passover  on  the  fatal  night,  coupled  with  the 
declaration  that  he  would  pass  through  the  land  of 
Egypt  that  night  and  smite  all  the  first-born  both  of 
man  and  beast,  but  would  pass  over  those  houses  on 
v/hich  was  the  blood.  He  further  adds,  vs.  14-20, 
that  this  was  to  be  commemorated  in  all  future  time 
by  an  annual  feast  of  seven  days,  during  which  no 
leavened  bread  should  be  eaten  and  no  leaven  should 
be  in  their  houses.  Moses  at  once,  vs.  21-27,  sum- 
mons the  elders  of  the  people  and  instructs  them  in 
regard  to  the  Passover,  informing  them  that  it  was 
designed  to  be  a  permanent  ordinance  in  memory  of 
this  impending  deliverance,  and  the  people,  ver.  28, 
did  as  they  were  enjoined. 

Then  follow,  vs.  29-42,  the  infliction  of  the  plague, 
the  consternation  of  Pharaoh  and  the  Egyptians, 
their  forcing  Israel  out  of  the  land  in  urgent  haste, 
and  lading  them  with  treasures  as  the  LORD  had 
promised.  The  numbers  of  the  people  and  the  dura- 
tion of  the  stay  in  Egypt  are  noted,  since  they  were 
fulfilments  of  declarations  long  before  made  to  Abra- 
ham. The  mixed  multitude  that  accompanied  them 
'  "  Beitrage,"  II.,  p.  198. 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.  89 

gave  occasion,  vs.  43-51,  to  a  supplementary  regula- 
tion respecting  the  Passover,  stating  the  condition 
upon  which  foreigners  could  partake  of  it.  The 
Lord  further  announces  to  Moses,  13:1,  2,  that 
Israel's  first-born  of  man  and  beast,  so  miraculously 
spared,  were  henceforth  to  be  reckoned  his.  And 
finally  Moses  imparts  to  the  people,  13:3-10,  who 
had  left  Egypt  in  such  haste  that  they  were  unable 
to  leaven  their  bread,  the  divine  injunction,  which 
he  had  not  repeated  sooner,  as  it  was  designed  for 
the  future  rather  than  the  present,  that  when  they 
reached  Canaan  they  were  to  commemorate  their 
departure  out  of  Egypt  by  an  annual  feast  of  Un- 
leavened Bread  lasting  seven  days.  And  he  completes 
the  delivery  of  the  messages  with  which  he  had  been 
entrusted  by  telling  them,  vs.  11-16,  of  the  enjoined 
hallowing  of  the  first-born. 

Eichhorn,  one  of  the  earliest  and  most  ingenious 
advocates  of  the  divisive  hypothesis  in  Genesis,  and 
to  whom  more  than  to  any  other  it  owed  its  sudden 
popularity,  saw  nothing  suspicious  in  the  Mosaic 
accounts  of  the  Passover  or  of  the  other  feasts.  He 
appeals  '  to  the  fact  that  the  writer  comes  back  again 
and  again  to  the  same  subject  in  Ex.,  ch.  12,  13,  and 
that  he  makes  supplementary  additions  in  successive 
paragraphs  in  evidence  that  these  passages  were  writ- 
ten on  the  spot,  and  that  they  have  been  preserved 
precisely  in  the  form  in  which  they  were  originally 
written.  And  Dr.  Dillmann  in  his  recent  commen- 
tary, even  while  contending  that  quite  distinct  and 

1  "  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,"  3d  Edit.  1803,  Vol.  II. 
p.  398. 


go  THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH,  12,  13. 

varying  accounts  have  been  blended  in  these  chap- 
ters, and  that  there  have  been  serious  displacements 
and  interpolations,  nevertheless  admits '  that  "  at 
first  view  they  cohere  admirably,"  such  is  the  skill 
with  which  the  final  Redactor  has  pieced  them  to- 
gether. 

Vater,'  writing  in  the  interest  of  the  fragmentary 
hypothesis,  points  out  an  imaginary  inconsistency 
between  Ex.  12:8,  according  to  which  the  use  of 
unleavened  bread  was  enjoined  at  the  first  Passover, 
and  vs.  34,  39,  which  trace  it  to  a  subsequent  occur- 
rence ;  and  he  suggests  that  several  paragraphs '  are 
complete  in  themselves,  and  might  be  omitted  with- 
out creating  any  break  in  the  narrative ;  whence  it 
might  be  inferred  that  they  were  of  independent 
origin. 

Gramberg*  discovered  that  two  distinct  narratives 
had  been  combined  in  these  chapters,  which  when 
taken  separately  gave  entirely  different  versions  of 
the  transaction.  To  the  first  narrator,  or  rather 
poet,  for  all  is  pure  invention,  belongs  the  whole  of 
ch.  12,  except  vs.  14-20,  the  direction _^__observe 
the  feast  of  Unleavened  Breads  This,  together  with 
13  :  1-16,  belongs  to  the  second  poet.  According  to 
the  former,  the  Passover  was  expressly  limited  to  a 
single  night,  ver.  42,  and  was  a  sacrificial  or  expiatory 
meal,  having  reference  to  the  myth  of  sparing  the 
first-born,  which  was  further  symbolized  by  the  blood 

*  '*  Die  Biicher  Exodus  und  Leviticus,"  p.  99. 

*  *'Kommentar,"  I.,  pp.  32,  33  ;  II.,  p.  447. 

«  Viz.,  12  : 1-13,  14-20,  40-42,  43-49,  50-51  ;  13  : 1-16. 

*  "  Religionsideen,"  T.,  pp.  271  ff. 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH,  12,  13.  91 

on  the  door-posts.  Unleavened  bread  was  eaten 
with  it  as  a  purely  subordinate  matter,  just  as  it  was 
associated  with  other  sacrifices.  He  finds  no  diffi- 
culty, therefore,  in  the  subsequent  mention  by  the 
same  writer  that  the  haste  with  which  the  Israelites 
had  to  leave  Egypt,  prevented  their  leavening  their 
bread ;  and  so  is  not  obliged  to  avail  himself  of  De 
Wette's  solution,'  that  though  the  writer  gives  two 
divergent  explanations  of  the  use  of  unleavened 
bread  at  the  Passover,  the  whole  account  is  so  incon- 
sistent that  he  may  easily  be  supposed  to  have  con- 
tradicted himself  in  this  instance  also.  Gramberg's 
second  narrator  had  quite  a  different  conception  of 
the  festival.  He  mentions  no  sacrificial  lamb  as  be- 
longing to  it  in  any  peculiar  sense.  It  is  with  him  a 
seven-day  feast,  in  v/hich  unleavened  bread  was  eaten 
in  memory  of  their  hasty  departure  out  of  Egypt, 
the  first  day  and  the  seventh  being  marked  by  holy 
convocations  and  by  abstinence  from  work.  He 
never  even  seems  to  have  suspected  a  difficulty, 
which  others  have  found  so  formidable,  that  one  pas- 
sage names  only  the  seventh  day  as  "  a  feast  to  the 
Lord,"  13  : 6. 

The  other  feast  laws  in  Exodus  Gramberg  parcels 
between  the  same  two  writers.  The  injunction,  Ex. 
23  :  15,  34:  18,  to  observe  "the  feast  of  Unleavened 
Bread"  belongs  to  the  second;  that  respecting  "the 
feast  of  the  Passover,"  Ex.  23  :  18,  34 :  25,  to  the  first. 
Inasmuch  as  these  two  injunctions  are  not  directly 
connected,  but  are  separated  by  intervening  laws  in 
both  instances,  he  infers  that  the  combination  of  the 

J  "Beitrage,"  II.,  p.  197. 


92  THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

Passover  with  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  had  not 
yet  taken  place  at  the  time  when  Exodus  was  issued, 
but  belongs  to  the  more  advanced  legislation  of  still 
later  times. 

George '  also  finds  two  narratives,  but  discrimi- 
nated by  a  different  principle  ;  one  is  purely  historical, 
the  other  simply  legal.  The  first  gives  an  account  of 
the  plague  of  the  first-born,  with  only  a  slight  allu- 
sion to  the  Passover  in  a  single  verse,  I2  142.  The 
other,  when  purged  of  interpolations,  directs  the 
observance  of  the  Passover  and  states  its  design,  but 
gives  no  description  of  the  meal  connected  with  it. 

Stahelin'  assigns  all  the  legal  passages  without  ex- 
ception in  Ex.  12  to  the  first  legislation  and  those  in 
ch.  13  to  the  second."   And  Vatke,*  though  he  reverses 
^  "  Die  alteren  Judischen  Feste,"  pp.  88  ff.     His  two  narratives 
are  (i)  ch.  11,  12  :  29-42  ;  (2)  12  :  i,  3-7,  12,  13,  21-28. 
^  "  Studien  u.  Kritiken,"  for  1835,  p.  462. 

'  Several  methods  of  dividing  these  chapters  as  proposed  by  differ- 
ent critics  may  here  be  stated  together  for  more  convenient  com- 
parison. 
Stahelin  :  First  Legislation,  Ex.  12  : 1-28,  43-51  (Mosaic). 

Second  Legislation,     13  :  2-16,    ch.    19-24,    ch.    32-34  ; 

Deut.  (post-Mosaic). 
Vatke,  "Religion  d.  all.  Test."  L,  p.  429,  note,  adopts 
Stahelin's  division,  but  assigns  the  first  series  to  the 
seventh   century  B.C.,  and   makes  the  second   older, 
though  with  subsequent  additions. 
De  Wette  (Einleitung  ins.  A.  T.) : 

Elohist,  Ex.  12  :  1-28,  37-51  (except  39) ;  13  :  i,  2. 
Jehovist,        12  :  29-36,  39  ;  13  :  3-16. 
Knobel :  Elohist,  Ex.  12  :  1-23,  28,  37^,  4o-5^  ;  13:1,  2,  20. 

Jehovist,        12  :  24-27,  29-36,  37  (^-39  ;  13  :  3-19,  21,  22. 
This  may  be  further  decomposed  into  what  is  properly 

*  "  Religion  d.  alt.  Test.,"  p.  429- 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 


93 


the  order  of  the  legislations,  adopts  the  same  division. 
This  annuls  Gramberg's  distinction  between  the  writ- 
ers, that  one  knew  only  of  the  Passover  and  the  other 

from  the  Jehovist  himself,  and  what  he  derived  from 
other  sources  as  follows  : 
Jehovist  (proper),  I2  :  29-34,  39. 
Rechtsbuch,  12  :  24-27,  35,  36  ;  13  :  3-19,  21,  22. 
Kriegsbuch,  12  isyd,  38. 
Kayser  :  Elohist,  12  :  i-ro,  14-20,  28,  40-42,  43-51  ;  13  :  i,  2. 
Jehovist,  12  :  11-13,  21-27,  29-39  ;  13  :  3-16. 
So  .von  Orelli  in  Herzog's  "  Encyklopsedie,"  2d  Edition, 
Vol.  XI.,  art.  Passah. 
Noldeke  :  Grundschrift  (Elohist),  12  :  1-23,  (24-27),'  28,  37 «,  40,  41- 
51 ;  13:  I,  2. 
Jehovist,  12  :  29-36,  39  ;  13  :  3-16. 
Redactor,  12  :  37^^,  38. 
Schrader  :  Elohist,  12  :  1-23,  28,  37  «,  40-51  ;  13  :  i,  2,  20. 

Jehovist,  12  :  24-27,29-36,  37-5-39  ;  13  :  3-16. 

Dillmann  :  A  (Elohist).  12 :  1-20,  28,  37  a;,  40,  41,  43-50  ;  13  :  i,  2. 

B  (2d  Elohist),  12  :  2i(?),  31-33,  37^,  38,  42. 

C  Qehovist),  i2:2i(?)-27,    29,  30,  34,  35,  36,  39;    13: 

3-16. 

Wellhausen  :  Q  (Elohist),  12  :  T-20,  28,  37  a,  40,  41,  43-51 ;  13  :  i,  2. 

JE  (Jehovist),  12  :  (21-27),^^  29-39,  42  ;  (13  :  3-16).^ 
Vaihinger:*  Elohist,  Ex.  12:1-24,  28,  29,  37,   38,  40-42,  43-51: 
13  :  1-4,  20. 
Pre-Elohist,  12  :  35,  36  ;  13  :  17-19. 
Jehovist,  12  :  25-27,  30-36,  39;  13  :  5-9,  10-16,  21,  22. 
Amid  this  diversity  it  will  be  perceived  that  there  is  a  general 
agreement  in  referring  to  the 

Elohist,  Ex.  12  :  1-20,  43-50 ;  13  :  ii  2. 
Jehovist,  13  :  3-16. 
This  seems  to  be  necessary,  if  any  plausible  division  whatever  is 
to  be  made. 

1  Later  addition. 

8  Later  addition  to  Jehovist,  or  appendage  of  unknown  origin  to  Elohist, 

3  Later  addition  by  Deuteronomic  reviser. 

4  In  Herzog's  "  Encyklopsedie,"  ist   Edit.,  art.  Pascha. 


94  THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

only  of  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,  for  the  first  law 
embraces  both.  But  the  two  laws  differ  nevertheless. 
In  naming  the  month  of  the  festival  one  calls  it,  13  :  4, 
''the  month  Abib  ";  the  other  designates  it  simply  by 
its  number  as  "the  first  month,"  12  :  18,  which  ac- 
cording to  Vatke  and  Wellhausen  is  a  very  significant 
circumstance,  implying  a  change  in  the  calendar  and 
in  the  time  of  beginning  the  year,  which  took  place 
after  the  Babylonish  exile.  They  further  clash  in 
their  provisions ;  one  law  requires  a  holy  convoca- 
tion and  abstinence  from  work  on  both  the  first  and 
seventh  days  of  Unleavened  Bread  ;  the  other  upon  the 
seventh  day  only,  the  civil  disturbances  of  the  period 
making  it  necessary  to  lighten  the  burdens  imposed 
upon  worshippers.  Or  as  Dr.  Dillmann  still  further 
exaggerates  the  discrepancy  by  urging  the  technical 
sense  of  the  term  used,  rest  from  toil  is  not  the  thing 
required  on  the  seventh  day  at  all,  but  a  pilgrimage 
to  the  sanctuary :  whence  he  infers  that  while  one 
law  prescribes  attendance  at  the  sanctuary  during  the 
entire  seven  days,  the  other  limits  it  to  the  seventh 
day  alone,  the  Passover  having  first  been  observed  by 
each  family  apart  at  their  own  homes  ;  and  a  different 
usage  still  is  represented  in  Dcut.  16:7,  which  insists 
upon  the  Passover  being  eaten  at  the  sanctuary,  but 
allows  the  worshippers  to  return  home  on  the  follow- 
ing day,  which  was  the  first  of  Unleavened  Bread.  A 
further  difference  between  the  two  laws,  in  Ex.  12  and 
13,  is  found  in  the  fact  that  while  both  enjoin  the 
eating  of  unleavened  bread  for  seven  days,  one  en- 
forces it  upon  the  penalty  of  being  "  cut  off  from 
Israel,"  12:15,  of  which  the  other,  less  rigorous,  makes 
no  mention. 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH,  12,  13.  95 

The  supplemental  law  of  the  Passover,  vs.  43-49, 
is  by  Stahelin  as  by  most  critics  assigned  to  the 
author  of  the  preceding  regulations  in  the  same  chap- 
ter, regardless  of  the  inconsistencies  which  others 
have  pointed  out,  viz.,  that  one  required  the  whole 
lamb  to  be  eaten  in  one  house,  12  146,  while  the  other 
allowed  two  neighboring  families  to  share  it  between 
them,  ver.  4;  that  one  was  issued  in  Egypt,  ver.  i, 
while  the  terms  of  the  other  imply  settlement  in 
Canaan,  vs.  48,  49. 

The  majority  of  critics,  however,  differ  from  Sta- 
helin, who  saw  no  divergence  between  the  two  pas- 
sages relating  to  the  first-born  in  ch.  13,  and  conse- 
quently attributed  them  both  to  the  same  writer. 
The  prevalent  fashion  is  to  divide  them  between  dis- 
tinct writers,  assigning  one  to  the  so-called  Elohist 
the  other  to  the  Jehovist,  or  as  Wellhausen  prefers  to 
designate  them,  Q  and  J  E.  This  allows  opportunity 
for  insisting  upon  a  fresh  discrepancy,  viz.,  that  one 
claims  all  the  first-born  in  Israel  for  Jehovah  without 
exception,  13:2;  but  the  other,  vs.  12,  13,  makes  the 
firstlings  of  sacrificial  animals  unqualifiedly  his,  while 
first-born  children  must  be  redeemed,  and  the  option 
is  allowed  to  redeem  the  firstlings  of  unclean  animals 
or  to  kill  them. 

There  is  not  a  little  diversity  among  the  critics  in 
their  method  of  dealing  with  12  :  24-27,  the  explana- 
tion to  be  given  to  children  of  the  meaning  of  the 
Passover,  which,  as  Wellhausen  says,  is  allied  to  the 
Jehovist  in  phrase  and  diction,  and  to  the  Elohist  in 
contents,  a  joint  relation  to  both,  which  might  tempt 
the  unsophisticated  to  suspect  that  possibly  the  Elo- 


96  THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS^  CH.  12,  13. 

hist  and  the  Jehovist  were  one  and  the  same  person 
after  all.  Schrader  gives  these  verses  to  the  Jehovist, 
and  thus  gains  what  is  thought  to  be  a  better  connec- 
tion for  ver.  28  by  attaching  it  directly  to  ver.  23  ; 
but  as  the  Jehovist  could  not  explain  what  he  had 
previously  said  nothing  about,  this  makes  it  neces- 
sary to  assume  that  he  had  before  given  a  law  of  the 
Passover,  which  has  been  altogether  omitted  from  our 
present  text.  Knobel  rids  himself  of  the  trouble- 
some verses  by  assigning  them  to  the  "  Rechtsbuch," 
a  tertitim  quid,  which  other  critics  pronounce  a  fig- 
ment of  his  own  imagination.  Noldeke  thinks  them 
a  later  addition  to  the  Elohist,  but  not  belonging  to 
his  work  in  its  original  form.  Kayser,  Wellhausen 
and  Dillmann  attach  these  verses  to  those  imme- 
diately preceding,  vs.  21-23,  thus  giving  them  their 
natural  connection  as  an  explanation  of  the  rite  which 
Moses  had  just  enjoined,  and  obviating  the  necessity  of 
assuming  that  a  similar  injunction  had  been  omitted 
from  the  text.  This  whole  passage,  vs.  21-27,  is  then 
by  Kayser  assigned  to  the  Jehovist.  The  conse- 
quence of  which  is,  that  ver.  28  of  the  Elohist  docu- 
ment connects  directly  with  ver.  20,  and  the  children 
of  Israel  are  represented  as  doing  what  the  LORD  had 
commanded  Moses  and  Aaron,  without  having  them- 
selves been  informed  what  it  was.  And  it  has  the 
further  consequence  of  leaving  these  verses  as  an  im- 
pediment in  the  way  of  another  junction  which  the 
critics  are  anxious  to  form.  Ch.  12  :  29  records  the 
actual  infliction  of  the  last  plague,  the  smiting  of  the 
first-born  throughout  tlic  land  of  Egypt.  Ch.  11  14-8 
contains  the  announcement  of  this  plague  by  Moses 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.  97 

to  Pharaoh.  Now  if  all  that  intervenes  could  be 
taken  out  of  the  way  as  an  insertion  from  another 
source,  the  threatening  and  its  execution  would  be 
brought  together ;  the  passage  thus  excluded  would 
not  be  missed ;  the  narrative  not  only  proceeds  with- 
out interruption,  but  the  connection  is  positively  im- 
proved by  removing  what  is  thus  shown  to  be  a 
foreign  element,  and  a  new  point  is  scored  in  favor  of 
the  hypothesis  that  diverse  sources  have  here  been 
blended ;  on  the  assumption,  that  is,  that  no  writer 
can  introduce  a  digression  or  a  parenthesis. 

Dillmann  takes  a  step  toward  effecting  this  result 
by  assuming  a  partial  transposition  in  the  text  of  the 
Jehovist,  to  whom  he  also  refers  this  passage.  He 
queries,  however,  whether  ver.  21  may  not  be  drawn 
from  another  source,  since  it  says  that  Moses  called 
for  "  the  elders,"  whereas,  ver.  27,  it  was  "  the  peo- 
ple" whom  he  addressed.  But  this  interchange  of 
the  elders  with  the  people,  whose  permanent  represen- 
tatives they  were,  plainly  did  not  trouble  the  Redac- 
tor, and  it  is  too  frequent  and  familiar  both  in  the 
Pentateuch  and  elsewhere '  to  require  the  application 
of  the  critical  knife.  He  also  queries  whether  the 
Redactor  has  not  conformed  the  expressions  in  vs. 
22^,  23  to  vs.  7,  12,  13:  and  certainly  they  are  very 
suspiciously  alike  to  be  referred  to  quite  independent 
writers. 

Wellhausen  here  attains  his  end  by  throwing  this 
troublesome  passage  out  altogether,  still  undecided 

1  See  Ex.  4 :  29-31 ;  19  :  7,  8.  Deut.  5  :  23.  i  Sam.  8  : 4,  7,  etc. 
'2  Sam.  5  : 1,  3  ;  I7  :  4,  i4,  i5  ;  19  :  n,  M-  i  Kin.  21 :  11.  3  Kin. 
23: 1,  2.    I  Chron.  11  :  i,  3. 

7 


98  THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

wliether  it  is  an  appendage  of  unknown  origin  to  Q, 
I  hter  addition  to  JE.     And  he  is  also  in  perplex- 

v^  ibout  the  similar  passage,  13:3-6,  on  account  of 
resemblance  to  the  style  of  Deuteronomy ;  that  is, 

)  ::)C  sure,  easily  accounted  for  if  Moses  wrote  them 
I  )th.     But   as  the  Jehovist  could  not  have  quoted 
from  a  book  written  centuries  after  his  time,  this  must 
nave  been  inserted  here  by  a  Deuteronomic  reviser. 

Upon  Noldeke's  division  of  these  chapters  the  term 
"  Passover  "  is  used  only  by  the  Elohist ;  and  he  re- 
marks that  its  occurrence  in  the  Pentateuch  is  limited 
to  the  Elohist  and  to  Deuteronomy  with  the  single 
exception  of  Ex.  34:  25,  where  it  is  either  a  later  ad- 
dition or  has  been  retained  from  the  diction  of  an 
earlier  law.  And  from  this  avoidance  of  the  term, 
which  is  created  purely  by  his  own  critical  process, 
he  infers  that  the  word  "  Passover  "  was  not  in  com- 
mon use  in  the  northern  kingdom.  According  to  the 
Jehovist  Pharaoh  lets  the  people  go  to  have  their 
feast  in  the  wilderness  ;  according  to  the  Elohist  they 
had  celebrated  it  already  before  leaving  Egypt. 

Kayser  shifts  the  lines  of  division  and  finds  that 
the  Jehovist  bases  both  the  Passover  and  Unleavened 
Bread  on  occurrences  connected  with  the  Exodus, 
while  the  laws  for  these  feasts  as  given  by  the  Elohist 
are  general  and  irrespective  of  any  historical  occasion. 
The  Elohist  fixes  the  day  upon  which  the  lamb  was 
to  be  selected,  and  that  on  which  it  should  be  eaten. 
The  Jehovist  directs  that  it  should  be  in  the  month 
Abib  without  specifying  the  day.  The  Elohist  ordains 
in  the  general  that  all  the  first-born  must  be  hallowed 
to  Jehovah  without  defining  how  or  when.     The  Je- 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12.  13.  99 

hovist  gives  a  reason  for  the  law,  which  indicates  that 
the  sacrifice  or  redemption  of  the  first-born  should 
take  place  at  the  Passover.  And  there  are  breaks  in 
both  the  Elohist  and  Jehovist,  which  require  the  as- 
sumption of  omissions  from  the  text. 

Wellhausen  runs  a  still  different  line  of  separation 
and  with  an  altered  result.  Q,  or  the  Elohist,  bases 
the  celebration  on  the  fact  that  Israel  was  spared  by 
the  destroying  angel.  This  idea  is  wholly  foreign  to 
JE,  the  Jehovist,  as  well  as  to  his  sources  J  and  E,  the 
Jahvist  and  the  other  Elohist.  They  never  imagined 
the  possibility  of  the  plague  falling  upon  Israel.  It 
is  to  them  a  necessary  postulate,  not  suspended  on 
any  condition  whatever,  that  Jehovah  will  make  a  dis- 
tinction between  Egypt  and  his  own  people.  They 
lay  all  the  emphasis  upon  the  fatal  stroke  itself.  It 
is  this,  and  not  releasing  Israel  from  its  effects,  which 
is  to  be  commemorated.  In  the  Elohist  the  feast  was 
appointed  with  a  view  to  the  exodus  ;  in  the  Jehovist 
the  exodus  is  for  the  sake  of  celebrating  the  feast. 
In  the  Elohist  the  blood  was  to  be  put  upon  the  door- 
posts once  for  a  definite  purpose  in  Egypt ;  in  the 
Jehovist  it  is  a  standing  rite  to  be  annually  repeated. 
The  infliction  of  the  last  plague  and  Moses'  announce- 
ment of  it  to  Pharaoh  are  put  in  immediate  conjunc- 
tion and  both  assigned  to  the  Jehovist,  but  there  is 
an  irreconcilable  variance  between  the  different  parts 
of  the  narrative ;  for  he  partly  follows  one  of  his 
sources,  J,  and  partly  the  other,  E. 

Dillmann  finds  use  for  all  three  of  his  sources  in 
tUese  chapters,  for  A  (the  Elohist),  B  (the  other 
^  lohist),  and  C  (the  Jehovist);  and  he  gives  R  (the 


100         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

Redactor)  plenty  to  do  in  the  way  of  transposition 
and  modification.  He  agrees  precisely  with  Well- 
hausen  in  the  verses  and  parts  of  verses  assigned  to 
the  Elohist ;  but  differs  in  the  partition  of  the  remain- 
der,  whence  there  results  a  number  of  new  discrep- 
ancies. The  Jehovist  says  nothing  of  selecting  the 
lamb  four  days  in  advance,  but  appears  to  imply  that 
the  people  were  to  go  at  once  and  kill  it  as  soon  as 
they  received  the  order ;  no  fixed  age  is  prescribed 
for  the  lamb,  and  no  particular  quality ;  nothing  is 
said  of  a  Passover  meal.  Hyssop  is  to  be  used  in  the 
ritual,  of  which  the  Elohist  makes  no  mention.  The 
Elohist  represents  this  ordinance  as  then  first  institu- 
ted by  Moses ;  the  Jehovist  calls  it  ''the  Passover" 
when  he  first  speaks  of  it,  implying  that  it  was  known 
and  observed  before.  The  Jehovist  speaks  of  a  de- 
stroying angel ;  according  to  the  Elohist  God  inflicted 
the  plague  himself. 

It  would  seem  accordingly  that  there  is  no  difficulty 
in  partitioning  these  chapters  among  different  writers, 
each  of  whom  shall  represent  the  facts  in  a  manner 
peculiar  to  himself.  Indeed  this  can  be  done  very 
variously  and  almost  without  limit,  as  the  critics 
themselves  have  been  at  pains  to  illustrate.  All  that 
it  is  necessary  to  do  is  to  sunder  a  closely  connected 
passage,  and  insist  that  each  separate  portion  shall  be 
rigorously  interpreted  by  itself  not  only  with  no  re- 
gard to  its  context,  but  if  possible  at  variance  with 
it.  The  Lord  gives  to  Moses  directions  respecting 
the  Passover,  Unleavened  Bread  and  the  first-born. 
Moses  repeats  these  to  the  people.  And  this  is  abso- 
lutely  made  a  basis  for  the  allegation  that  two  sepa- 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.        loi 

rate  laws  are  here  combined  respecting  these  various 
matters.  The  Elohist  records  what  the  LORD  said 
to  Moses ;  the  Jehovist  what  Moses  said  to  the 
people.  It  might  have  been  supposed,  that  as  one  of 
these  necessarily  implies  the  other,  the  natural  infer- 
ence would  have  been  unity  of  authorship  rather  than 
diversity  of  writers. 

But  it  is  said  that  the  law,  as  declared  by  Moses  to 
the  people,  differs  so  seriously  from  that  which  is 
spoken  by  the  LORD  to  Moses  in  both  form  and  sub- 
stance, that  they  are  manifestly  separate  laws  in  every 
case.  This  allegation  is  at  variance  with  the  princi- 
ples of  the  reigning  critical  hypothesis  itself.  It  sa- 
vors rather  of  the  old  fragmentary  hypothesis,  accord- 
ing to  which  the  Pentateuch  was  a  jumble  of  unre- 
lated and  mutually  inconsistent  paragraphs.  But  the 
present  race  of  critics  suppose  that  the  Pentateuch 
owed  its  existing  form  to  a  Redactor,  who  has  put 
together  what  he  thought  to  be  a  self-consistent  nar- 
rative, and  meant  to  be  so  regarded.  And  if  he  is 
charged  at  times  with  attempting  to  harmonize  ac- 
counts, which  in  their  separate  form  and  primary  sense 
u^ere  really  diverse,  this  nevertheless  shows  his  belief 
in  their  consistency.  He  certainly  intended  his  read- 
ers to  understand  that  the  law  delivered  by  Moses 
to  the  people  was  identical  with  that  which  Moses 
had  himself  received  from  the  mouth  of  God.  Unless, 
therefore,  he  was  destitute  either  of  honesty  or  of 
sense  there  can  not  be  the  utter  contrariety  here 
which  the  critics  profess  to  discover;  and  this  may 
be  afifirmed  with  the  greater  confidence,  as  the  critics 
disagree  to   such   an  extent  among  themselves  as  to 


102         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

the  points  in  which  this  contrariety  appears.  In  re. 
peated  instances  one  detects  glaring  inconsistencies  in 
what  another  quietly  ignores,  or  dismisses  as  of  small 
account.  It  surely  will  not  be  insisted  upon  that 
the  writer  must  load  his  narrative  with  the  tedious- 
ness  of  identical  repetition,  whenever  Moses  is  made 
the  medium  of  divine  communication  to  the  people. 
Why  may  he  not,  in  repeating  the  words  of  Moses, 
abridge  what  has  already  been  presented  to  his  readers 
with  sufficient  fulness  as  the  utterance  of  God,  or  on 
the  other  hand  enlarge  more  fully  in  the  former  what 
has  been  briefly  stated  in  the  latter?  He  had  a  right 
to  presume  that  these  would  be  regarded  as  mutually 
supplementary,  and  each  would  be  interpreted  by  the 
other.  And  if  the  entire  passage  be  regarded  in  its 
connection  with  the  fairness  and  candor  that  should 
be  accorded  to  any  ordinary  writer,  the  discrepancies 
will  totally  disappear. 

We  are  entitled,  therefore,  to  exclude  from  the  list 
of  alleged  discrepancies  mere  differences  in  the  fulness 
of  statement  where  there  is  no  positive  variance,  but 
one  passage  simply  omits  details  which  are  mentioned 
in  the  other,  and  which  are  not  repeated  for  the  rea- 
son that  a  single  reference  to  them  was  deemed  suffi- 
cient, such  as  designating  the  Passover  lamb  in  ad- 
vance, the  use  of  hyssop  in  sprinkling  its  blood,  and 
the  mode  in  which  the  flesh  of  the  lamb  was  to  be 
prepared  and  eaten.  But  we  are  told  that  conflicting 
statements  are  made  in  these  chapters  ;  that  there  are 
inconsistencies  in  the  laws  themselves,  that  the  laws 
are  inconsistent  with  the  historical  narrative,  and  that 
the  narrative  is  not  consistent  with  itself:  and  that 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.         103 

the  simplest  explanation  of  these  inconsistencies  is 
that  there  are  here  blended  the  separate  accounts  of 
distinct  writers.     Let  us  see. 

George  and  Gramberg  tell  us  that  the  directions 
respecting  Unleavened  Bread,  12  :  15-20  and  13  :  3-10, 
contain  no  allusion  to  the  Passover,  and  the  writer 
seems  to  have  no  knowledge  of  any  such  ordinance. 
But  this  silence  is  not  surprising,  as  it  had  been  suffi- 
ciently spoken  of  in  the  preceding  section  ;  and  fixing 
the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month  at  even,  12  :  18,  as 
the  time  to  begin  eating  unleavened  bread  is  a  plain 
reference  to  the  use  of  it  at  the  Passover;  and  all  crit- 
ics now  allow  that  the  paragraphs  relating  to  the  Pass- 
over and  to  Unleavened  Bread  in  ch.  12,  are  both  from 
the  same  writer.  Hupfeld  and  Wellhausen  make  a 
much  more  startling  assertion,  however,  if  it  could  be 
established.  It  is  that  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread 
and  the  hallowing  of  the  first-born  in  ch.  13,  take  the 
place  of  the  Passover  and  Unleavened  Bread  in  ch.  12, 
as  the  annual  commemoration  of  the  smiting  of  the 
first-born  and  the  exodus.  One  law  directs  that  a 
lamb  should  be  annually  slain  and  eaten ;  the  other 
ordains  that  not  one  lamb  only,  but  all  the  firstlings 
from  both  their  flocks  and  their  herds  should,  year 
by  year,  be  offered  to  God  in  memory  of  this  great 
deliverance,  which  indicates  a  totally  different  prac- 
tice, and  one  which  corresponds  rather  with  the  law 
in  Deut.  16  :  2.  But  the  divisive  hypothesis  itself 
warrants  no  such  conclusion.  The  Elohist  in  these 
chapters  puts  the  hallowing  of  the  first-born  in  con- 
nection with  the  exodus,  as  well  as  the  Passover  and 
Unleavened  Bread  ;  he  does  so  with  equal  distinctness 


104         ^-^^  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

elsewhere,  Num.  3  :  13,  8  :  i/.  The  offering  of  the 
first-born  is  not  a  substitute  for  the  Passover,  but  ad- 
ditional to  it ;  and  hence  they  are  so  often  combined 
in  the  subsequent  laws  of  the  Pentateuch,  Ex.  22  :  29  f., 
23  :  15,  34  :  18-20,  Deut.  15  :  iQf.,  16  :  i.  And  so  it 
is  according  to  the  general  voice  of  the  critics  in  the 
Jehovist  likewise. 

Hupfeld  finds  a  difBculty  in  Ex.  12  :  16,  according 
to  which  the  first  day  of  Unleavened  Bread  is  to 
be  observed  as  a  Sabbath  by  abstinence  from  work 
and  a  holy  convocation,  and  in  Lev.  23  :  11,  comp. 
ver.  7,  it  is  expressly  called  a  Sabbath.  Yet  on  that 
day  they  were  to  put  away  leaven  from  their  houses, 
prepare  unleavened  bread  and  slay  the  passover,  and 
they  did  in  fact  leave  Egypt.  But  the  very  passage 
appealed  to  shows  that  it  was  not  a  strict  Sabbath,  for 
they  are  explicitly  allowed  to  prepare  their  food,  which 
was  forbidden  on  the  Sabbath,  Ex.  16  :  23  ff.,  35  :  2  f. 
Besides,  sacred  actions  belonging  to  the  ritual  and 
enjoined  in  the  law  were  lawful  upon  the  Sabbath. 
Part  of  what  is  here  objected  to  was  to  be  performed 
the  day  before  in  preparation  for  the  Passover.  And 
as  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  was  only  intended 
to  be  observed  in  Canaan  and  had  not  yet  been  made 
known  to  the  people,  when  they  were  forced  out  of 
Egypt,  this  compulsory  march  was  surely  no  violation 
of  the  statute. 

A  more  plausible  ground  of  objection  is  that  12  :  16 
directs  a  holy  convocation  upon  the  first  and  seventh 
days  of  Unleavened  Bread,  while  13:6  only  distinguish- 
es the  seventh  day  as  a  feast  of  the  LORD.  Two 
points  are   raised   here ;  one,  that   the   first   passage 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.         105 

singles  out  two  days  of  the  seven  for  special  observ- 
ance ;  the  other,  that  the  terms  used  to  describe  this 
observance  are  different  in  the  two  cases.  One  directs 
that  ''  there  shall  be  a  holy  convocation  and  no  man- 
ner of  work  shall  be  done  ";  the  other,  that  there 
"  shall  be  a  feast  to  the  Lord."  Hupfeld  thinks  that 
these  are  identical  in  meaning,  the  former  defining 
how  the  feast  required  in  the  latter  is  to  be  observed. 
Dillmann  insists  that  they  are  quite  diverse  in  signifi- 
cation ;  that  in  its  constant  usage  the  word  "  feast " 
in  Hebrew  denotes  a  pilgrimage  festival,  and  that  the 
specific  thing  required  is  that  worshippers  should 
make  their  pilgrimage  to  the  sanctuary,  which  is  quite 
independent  of  a  holy  convocation  that  might  be  held, 
though  none  were  expected  or  required  to  be  present 
from  a  distance.  If  this  distinction  be  insisted  on, 
then  instead  of  exaggerating  the  difficulty,  as  seems 
to  be  thought  by  Dillmann,  it  neutralizes  it  altogether. 
For  there  is  not  the  slightest  collision  or  interference 
in  the  two  injunctions.  If  two  days  are  appointed 
for  holy  convocation  and  pilgrims  from  a  distance  are 
only  required  to  be  present  at  one,  the  regulations  are 
in  perfect  harmony.  In  fact  Dillmann  himself  inter- 
prets Deut.  16 :  7,  8,  as  enjoining  this  very  thing. 

If,  however,  with  Hupfeld  we  suppose  the  expres- 
sions to  be  substantially  identical  in  meaning,  no 
difficulty  is  created  by  the  mention  of  the  seventh 
day  alone  in  the  verse  above  cited.  The  first  day 
had  already  been  singled  out  in  the  same  identical 
paragraph  but  three  verses  before,  and  the  stress  of 
the  whole  observance  put  upon  that  day.  The  reason 
of  the  institution  lay  in  it.     "  Remember  this  day  in 


I06         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

which  ye  came  out  from  Egypt."  This  was  the  very 
thing  to  be  commemorated.  Here  all  the  sacredness 
centered,  which  flowed  over  into  the  succeeding  days, 
and  formed  them  into  a  seven-day  festival.  A  lower 
grade  of  sacredness  attached  to  the  days  that  followed, 
though  leavened  bread  was  forbidden  throughout  the 
entire  week,  which  ended,  as  it  began,  with  a  day  of 
marked  solemnity.  It  should  further  be  observed 
that  this  direction  was  given  by  Moses  to  the  people 
at  the  close  of  the  first  day  of  the  sacred  week.  Legis- 
lating for  future  years,  he  says,  Remember  this  day  of 
signal  divine  deliverance,  eat  unleavened  bread  for  seven 
days  and  observe  the  seventh.  How  any  one  can  imag- 
ine that  such  a  command  passes  over  the  first  day  as 
inferior  in  dignity  or  to  be  less  sacredly  kept  than  the 
seventh  it  is  difficult  to  understand.  And  it  is  precisely 
the  same  with  the  parallel  passage  in  Deut.  i6 :  i,  3,  8. 
The  suggestion  that  12  :  19  imposes  this  observe 
ance  alike  upon  strangers  and  those  born  in  the  land 
upon  pain  of  death,  whereas  vs.  43-49  debar  every 
uncircumcised  stranger  from  keeping  it,  scarcely  de- 
serves mention.  For  the  regulations  relate  to  differ- 
ent matters  entirely.  One  refers  to  eating  unleavened 
bread ;  the  other  to  the  paschal  lamb.  Leaven,  the 
symbol  of  corruption,  was  at  this  holy  season  to  be 
banished  from  their  land.  The  celebration  of  so  sig- 
nal a  divine  interposition  demanded  the  putting  far 
away  of  the  leaven  of  malice  and  wickedness ;  and 
the  stranger  who  was  among  them  was  bound  by  the 
same  law.  But  to  the  special  act  of  communion  de- 
noted by  participation  of  the  lamb  none  but  the  cir- 
cumcised could  be  admitted. 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.         107 

It  is  further  alleged  that  the  laws  are  inconsistent 
with  the  narrative  in  which  they  are  found.  But  this 
is  as  untrue  as  the  allegation  already  examined  that 
the  enactments  are  inconsistent  with  one  another.  It 
is  said  that  the  confusion  and  haste  of  leaving  Egypt 
was  no  fit  time  for  appointing  such  an  observance. 
But  the  cavil  overlooks  entirely  the  nature  and  design 
of  the  ordinance.  The  sprinkled  blood  assured  their 
deliverance  ;  partaking  of  the  lamb  was  an  act  of  com- 
munion with  God,  which  pledged  to  them  his  presence 
and  powerful  aid.  It  was  just  what  they  then  most 
of  all  needed  to  be  assured  of  in  the  perils  of  that 
night  of  terror  and  death,  and  in  the  fatigues,  priva- 
tions and  dangers  that  were  to  follow,  that  they  were 
under  almighty  safe-conduct  and  that  He  who  com- 
missioned the  angel  of  death  was  their  protector  and 
guide,  and  would  surely  bring  them  to  the  land  prom- 
ised to  their  fathers. 

It  is  also  objected  that  although  it  had  been  an- 
nounced, II  :4ff.,  that  the  plague  inflicted  that  night 
would  break  the  obstinacy  of  Pharaoh  and  set  them 
free,  and  they  were  directed,  12:  ii,  to  eat  the  Pass- 
over  in  haste,  with  their  loins  girt  and  staff  in  hand, 
yet  the  order  to  leave  Egypt  was  so  unexpected  that 
they  had  not  even  prepared  the  necessary  food,  vs. 
34,  39.  But  apart  from  any  tardiness  that  may  have 
been  due  to  lingering  incredulity  in  regard  to  a  hope 
so  often  deferred,  the  people  may  not  have  under- 
stood from  the  midnight  plague,  nor  from  the  sym- 
bolic readiness  for  departure  in  the  ritual  of  the  Pass- 
over, that  they  were  then  in  actual  fact  to  leave  in. 
stantaneously.     Moses  himself  seems  not  to  have  ex 


Io8         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

pected  to  go  until  the  next  morning,  ver.  22.  The 
graphic  details  are  perfectly  true  to  nature.  The 
terrible  consternation  of  Pharaoh  and  the  Egyptians 
wrought  a  sudden  revolution  in  their  minds  toward 
the  Israelites,  whom  they  now  forced  out  of  the 
country  with  an  urgent  haste,  which  they  had  not  an- 
ticipated and  for  which  they  were  not  prepared. 

The  critics  complain  that  direction  was  given,  12:8, 
to  eat  unleavened  bread  with  the  first  Passover,  and, 
ver.  15,  to  institute  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread, 
when  yet  the  use  of  unleavened  bread  is  traced, 
vs.  34,  39,  to  a  subsequent  and  unforeseen  occur- 
rence, the  haste  with  which  they  were  obliged  to 
leave  Egypt.  But  the  difficulty  is  purely  imaginary. 
It  is  assumed  without  reason  that  the  historical  inci- 
dent is  narrated  for  the  purpose  of  accounting  for  the 
use  of  unleavened  bread  at  this  annual  festival ;  which 
is  not  at  all  the  case.  The  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread 
was  not  instituted  to  commemorate  the  inconvenience 
of  being  obliged  to  eat  their  bread  at  that  juncture 
without  leaven,  which  considered  in  this  light  was 
wholly  insignificant.  The  incident  derives  all  its 
meaning  from  the  feast  already  ordained,  though  not 
yet  enjoined  upon  the  people.  The  exclusion  of 
leaven  from  the  Passover  as  from  other  offerings  is 
due  to  its  being  regarded  as  the  symbol  of  corrup- 
tion. Unleavened  bread  alone  had  the  purity  befit- 
ting a  sacred  transaction.  Israel  partaking  of  a  feast 
of  Unleavened  Bread  was  thus  sealed  as  a  pure  people, 
freed  from  their  old  corruption  and  entering  upon  a 
new  career  in  the  LORD'S  service.  By  the  apparently 
casual  circumstance  here  recorded   Israel  was  in  the 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 


109 


providence  of  God  obliged  at  this  time  to  eat  that 
bread  of  purity,  which  the  commemorative  feast 
would  in  future  years  require.  Unleavened  bread 
being  thus  associated  with  the  very  circumstances  of 
the  exodus,  became  in  every  way  a  reminder  of  the 
great  deliverance  wrought  and  of  the  obligations 
which  it  involved.  So  that  it  is  not  even  necessary 
with  Dillmann  to  assume  that  the  passage  recording 
the  institution  of  this  feast,  12  :  14-20,  has  been 
transposed  by  the  Redactor  from  its  true  position 
after  the  exodus  had  actually  taken  place ;  for  which 
he  pleads  the  past  tense  of  the  verb,  12:17,  "this 
self-same  day  have  I  brought  your  armies  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt ";  where,  however,  the  tense  is  the 
same  as  when  God  says  to  Abraham  before  Isaac 
was  born.  Gen.  15:18,"  Unto  thy  seed  have  I  given 
this  land." 

But  it  is  said  that  a  commemorative  service  could 
not  be  ordained  before  the  event  to  be  commemo- 
rated had  occurred.  It  is  obvious  to  refer  to  the 
analogous  instance  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  And  fur- 
ther, in  its  original  observance  the  Passover  was  not 
a  commemoration,  but  a  preservative  against  the  com- 
ing plague.  The  sneering  suggestions  that  the  blood 
on  the  door-posts  was  put  there  to  enable  the  LORD 
to  distinguish  the  houses  of  the  Israelites,  and  that 
it  would  be  no  protection  from  a  pestilence,  only 
show  how  utterly  this  most  appropriate  and  signifi- 
cant transaction  has  been  misconceived.  The  whole 
symbolic  ceremonial  with  its  expiation  by  the  blood 
of  sprinkling  is  open  to  the  same  ignorant  condemna- 
tion. 


no         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

The  direction  "  not  to  go  out  of  the  door  of  theif 
house  till  the  morning,"  12  :  22,  comp.  ver.  10,  rests, 
we  are  told,  upon  a  different  conception  of  the  time 
of  the  exodus  from  vs.  31,  42,  according  to  which 
they  went  out  of  Egypt  by  night.  As  both  the 
Elohist  passages,  Ex.  12  :  17,  41,  51,  Num.  33  :  3,  and 
those  assigned  to  the  Jehovist,  Ex.  13:4,  speak  of  the 
day  of  the  Exodus  and  refer  it  to  the  morrow  after  the 
Passover,  Dfllmann  concludes  that  this  nocturnal  exit 
must  belong  to  a  third  writer,  the  other  Elohist.  But 
we  find  both  the  Jehovist,  11  14,  5,  12  :  29,  and  the 
Elohist,  12  :  12,  combining  in  the  statement  that  the 
first-born  were  smitten  in  the  night ;  while  in  Num. 
3  :  13,  8  :  17,  which  by  common  critical  consent  be- 
longs likewise  to  the  Elohist,  he  speaks  of  "  the  day  " 
in  which  the  Lord  smote  all  the  first-born  in  Egypt. 
If  *'  night  "  and  "  day  "  can  in  this  instance  be  inter- 
changed without  requiring  the  assumption  of  a  dif- 
ferent writer,  why  not  in  the  other  parallel  instance 
likewise  ?  So  that  we  have  little  difficulty  in  assum- 
ing that  "  day  "  may  be  used  in  an  indefinite  sense 
for  the  time  of  an  event  irrespective  of  the  hour  of 
its  occurrence, — or  in  a  wide  sense  so  as  to  be  inclu- 
sive of  the  night, — or  that  the  undefined  period 
when  night  is  passing  into  day  may  be  indifferently 
spoken  of  as  either. 

But  it  is  further  affirmed  that  the  narrative  is  not 
only  inconsistent  with  the  laws  here  recorded,  but 
with  itself.  Hupfcld  points  out  what  he  considers  a 
serious  discrepancy  in  respect  to  time.  In  ii:4ff. 
Moses  announces  to  Pharaoh  that  at  midnight  all  the 
first-born  in  the  land  of  Egypt  shall  die :  this  must 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CM.  12,  13.        Ill 

therefore,  have  been  on  the   14th  day  of  the  month, 
the  plague  of  the  first-born  having  been  inflicted  in 
the  following  night.    And  yet  in  the  succeeding  chap- 
ter the  Lord  directs  what  is  to  be  done  on  the  loth 
of  the   month,  12:3;  at  the  same  time  and  in  the 
same  continuous  context  he  says,  "  I  will  pass  through 
the  land  of  Egypt  this   night,"  ver.  12,  and  further 
goes  on  to  say,  "  in  this  self-same  day  have  I  brought 
your  armies   out   of  the  land  of  Egypt,"  ver.  17,  as 
though  it  was  the  day  after  the  plague,  and  the  exodus 
was  already  accomplished.    Here,  it  is  said,  there  is  an 
utter  confusion  of  time.     The   loth,  14th  and   15th 
days   of  the  month   are  all  jumbled  together  in  the 
most  inexplicable  manner. 

But  if  the  interpreter  will  only  use  a  little  common 
sense,  he  will  find  that  there  is  no  confusion  what- 
ever, but  a  perfectly  clear  and  orderly  arrangement. 
In  the  chapters  preceding  the  twelfth  there  is  a  con- 
tinuous account  of  the  plagues  with  which  the  LORD 
had  smitten  Egypt  in  terrible  succession.   The  writer 
proceeds  with  his  narrative,  not  interrupting  it  with 
extraneous  matter,  until  he  reaches  Moses'  announce- 
ment  to  Pharaoh  of  the  last  decisive  stroke,  which 
would  set  Israel  free.     Here  he  pauses  to  introduce 
the  Passover,  which   played  so   important  a  part   in 
saving  Israel  from  the  destruction  of  that  fatal  night, 
which  symbolized   in  the  most  impressive  way  their 
new    character   and   new    relation    to    Jehovah,   and 
which  was  to  be  the  standing  memorial  in  all  future 
time  of  their  deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage,  the 
birthday  of  their  national  existence,  and  their  conse- 
cration  to  Jehovah  as  his  people.     In  order  to  give  a 


112        THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

connected  view  of  this  great  national  and  divinel) 
appointed  institution,  he  goes  back  a  few  days  to  the 
original  direction  given  by  the  LORD  to  Moses  on  the 
lOth  day  of  the  month,  which  he  could  not  have  men- 
tioned before  without  breaking  the  unity  of  his  pre- 
vious narrative,  and  dealing  with  the  subject  of  the 
Passover  in  a  disjointed  and  fragmentary  way.  When 
in  the  course  of  what  the  LORD  then  said  to  Moses, 
he  speaks  of  passing  through  Egypt  "  this  night "  to 
smite  the  first-born,  the  night  referred  to  belongs 
not  to  the  day  on  which  he  is  speaking,  but  that  of 
which  he  is  speaking,  the  14th  day,  mentioned  just 
before,  on  the  evening  of  which  the  Passover  was  to 
be  slain,  and  it  is  the  day,  which  then  began  accord- 
ing  to  the  Jewish  mode  of  reckoning,  in  which  he 
speaks  of  bringing  the  armies  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt. 

This  also  relieves  George's  objection  that  Moses 
announces  to  Pharaoh  God's  purpose  to  smite  the 
first-born,  11:4,  whereas  the  LORD  does  not  himself 
reveal  it  to  Moses  until  the  following  chapter,  12  :  12  ; 
this  chapter,  however,  dates  back  at  least  four  days 
before  ch.  11.  Besides  it  does  not  appear  that  12:12 
was  the  first  disclosure  of  God's  purpose  to  Moses, 
comp.  4:  23.  It  is  here  introduced  not  for  the  sake 
of  informing  him  of  the  fact,  but  as  the  reason  for 
the  institution  of  the  Passover. 

According  to  10  :  28,  29,  Moses  was  not  to  see 
Pharaoh's  face  again  ;  and  yet  after  that,  12:31,  he 
called  for  Moses  and  Aaron  and  bade  them  go  forth 
with  the  children  of  Israel ;  the  simple  explanation 
of  which  is  that  by  a  familiar  usage  of  language,  the 
king  is  said  to  do  himself  what  he  did  through  the 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.        113 

instrumentality  of  others.  And  the  principle  is  the 
same  when  the  smiting  of  the  first-born  is  attributed 
to  the  Lord,  i  i  :  4,  12  :  12,  29,  and  also  to  the  destroy- 
ing angel,  12  123,  whose  agency  he  employed.  It  is 
also  urged  that  12:31-33  contains  a  representation 
peculiar  to  the  Jehovist,  and  in  which  he  differs  in  a 
marked  manner  from  the  Elohist.  According  to 
these  verses  Pharaoh  grants  to  Moses  all  that  he  had 
asked,  viz.,  that  they  might  go  forth  to  hold  a  feast 
unto  the  Lord  ;  and  the  Egyptians  and  Pharaoh  are 
urgent  upon  the  people  to  have  them  leave.  Where- 
as, according  to  the  Elohist,  Moses  had  from  the  first 
demanded  that  Pharaoh  should  let  the  people  go  un- 
conditionally, 7:2;  and  the  LORD  himself  would  lead 
them  out  in  spite  of  Pharaoh's  continued  refusal, 
7:4,  5.  But  there  is  no  such  diversity  as  is  here  pre- 
tended. In  order  that  Pharaoh's  unreasonable  obsti- 
nacy might  be  set  in  the  strongest  light,  the  only  de- 
mand made  upon  him  is  that  he  should  let  the  people 
go  three  days'  journey  into  the  wilderness  that  they 
might  sacrifice  to  the  LORD.  There  is  not  a  single 
passage  in  which  the  request  is  put  in  any  different 
form.  The  phrase  "  let  my  people  go,"  7 :  14,  8:2, 
9 :  2,  etc.,  alternates  in  Jehovah  passages  with  the  fuller 
phrase,  "  let  my  people  go  that  they  may  serve  me," 
7  :  16,  8  :  I,  9  :  I,  etc.  And  there  is  no  reason  for  un- 
derstanding it  differently  in  the  only  two  passages  in 
which  the  critics  assign  it  to  the  Elohist,  7:2,  ii  :  10. 
And  if  Pharaoh  and  the  Egyptians  drove  Israel  out 
contrary  to  their  native  inclination  and  under  a  divine 
constraint,  how  does  this  differ  from  the  declaration, 
7:4,  that  he  would  lay  his  hand  upon  Egypt  and 
8 


114         ^^^  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

bring  forth  his  people?  The  two  are  not  only  per 
fectly  consistent,  but_th_e^iyinje4iurpjo§^,was^ effected 
by  compelling  Pharaoh  to  co-operate  in  its  ^coju- 
plishment.' 

As  the  result  of  this  examination,  I  think  it  may 
be  unhesitatingly  affirmed  that  the  discrepancies  al- 
leged in  these  chapters  are  mere  captious  criticism,  and 
afford  no  ground  for  the  assumption  of  diversity  of 
authors,  much  less  for  contesting  the  truth  and  accu- 
racy of  the  record. 

But  it  is  further  claimed  that  there  is  such  a  want 
of  connection,  such  evident  dislocations  and  abrupt 
transitions  as  show  that  these  chapters  could  not 
have  been  originally  written  as  they  now  stand.  The 
present  condition  of  the  text  can  only  be  attributed 
to  a  Redactor  who  has  pieced  together  into  one  narra- 
tive what  were  originally  separate  histories  by  differ- 
ent writers. 

Thus  it  is  urged  that  I2  :  14  does  not  connect  with 
what  immediately  precedes.  It  speaks  of  "this  day" 
being  a  memorial,  when  no  day  had  been  referred  to, 
but  only  the  night  of  the  plague.  Kayser,  therefore, 
throws  out  vs.  11-13  and  connects  it  directly  with 
ver.  10.  Hupfeld  proposes  to  substitute  ver.  42  in 
its  place;  he  then  puts  ver.  15  after  19,  and  ver.  17 
after  20,  and  transposes  the  entire  paragraph,  vs. 
14-20,  thus  rearranged  so  as  to  stand  at  the  end  of 
the  chapter  after  ver.  41.  Dillmann  complains  of  the 
isolation  of  ver.  42,  but  admits  that  the  pronouns 
show  that  it  does  not  belong  after  ver.  13,  where 
Hupfeld  would   place  it.     He  gives  it  to  tht  oihei 

'  See  Bachmann,  "  Festgesetze,"  p.  63. 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.        115 

Elohist,  without  being  able  to  find  any  connection 
for  it  there.  He  does  not  approve  of  Hupfeld's  trans- 
positions in  the  body  of  vs.  14-20,  but  locates  the 
entire  paragraph  after  ver.  41,  supposing  it  to  have 
been  occasioned  by  Israel  having  to  leave  Egypt  with- 
out leavening  their  bread,  vs.  34,  39.  This  fact,  how- 
ever, is  only  mentioned  by  the  Jehovist,  as  Dillmann 
partitions  the  verses ;  which  makes  it  necessary  to 
assume  that  the  Elohist  had  said  the  very  same  thing, 
only  his  account  has  not  been  preserved. 

But  really  these  critics  give  themselves  a  needless 
amount  of  trouble  for  very  small  reason.  The  "day" 
spoken  of  in  ver.  14  is  the  one  of  which  the  night  of 
the  plague,  which  had  just  been  alluded  to,  formed 
a  part  in  the  ordinary  Jewish  reckoning.  And  the 
allegation  is  doubtless  in  the  main  correct  that  the 
feast,  which  in  this  verse  they  are  required  to  keep,  is 
the  seven  days  of  Unleavened  Bread,  which  the  writer 
thus  links  to  what  he  had  before  said  of  the  Passover ; 
though  the  confident  affirmation  that  the  Passover 
could  not  properly  be  called  "  a  feast "  is  refuted  by 
Ex.  34:25,  comp.  also  the  Hebrew  form  of  the  par- 
allel passage  Ex.  23:  18,  and  Isa.  30:29.  In  ver.  42, 
Dillmann  adopts  Wellhausen's  conceit  that  "  a  night  to 
be  observed"  should  be  rendered  "  a  night  of  watch- 
ing," this  sense  being  forced  upon  a  word  that  no- 
where else  occurs,  for  the  sake  of  thus  creating  a  new 
conception  of  the  mode  of  celebrating  the  night,  dif- 
ferent from  all  that  preceded,  and  different  it  may  be 
added  from  all  the  rest  of  Scripture,  for  Isa.  30  :  29 
affords  it  no  justification.  Deut.  16:  i,  with  its  plain 
allusion  to  this  verse,  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the 


Il6        THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

common  rendering  is  correct,  and  instead  of  its  stand* 
ing  "  isolated,"  it  really  gathers  up  in  one  emphatic 
utterance  the  spirit  of  all  that  precedes  it.  The  night, 
of  which  it  speaks,  is  included  in  the  day  of  the  fore- 
going verse;  and  that  memorable  day  and  night  have 
been  ringing  through  the  entire  chapter. 

It  has  been  argued  that  the  introductory  verse  of 
ch.  12  sounds  like  an  entirely  new  beginning,  as 
though  what  follows  was  an  independent  paragraph, 
standing  in  no  relation  to  anything  before  it.  It 
marks  the  transition  to  a  new  topic,  but  is  never- 
theless a  link  of  connection  with  the  preceding.  In 
summing  up  the  narrative  of  the  antecedent  plagues, 
11:9,  10,  the  Lord  had  declared  his  purpose  to  mul- 
tiply his  wonders  in  the  land  of  Egypt.  In  direct  con- 
tinuation the  writer  proceeds  to  declare  what  the  LORD 
had  further  done  "■  in  the  land  of  Egypt  "  in  fulfilment 
of  this  design.  This  objection  properly  has  its  place' 
only  in  the  old  exploded  fragmentary  hypothesis, 
which  regarded  every  title,  or  subscription  to  any  sec- 
tion, as  evidence  of  its  separate  and  independent  ex- 
istence. The  documentary  hypothesis  now  in  vogue 
is  obliged  to  regard  them  more  correctly  as  indicating 
convenient  subdivisions  of  the  subject  matter  and  in- 
troduced for  the  sake  of  clearness,  but  no  proof  of  any 
lack  of  continuity. 

It  is  further  contended  that  there  are  several  para- 
graphs in  these  chapters  which  are  but  loosely  con- 
nected with  the  general  thread  of  discourse,  and  may 
be  sundered  from  it  without  being  missed,  and  whose 
removal  will  really  improve  the  connection  by  restor- 
ing a  continuity  which  they  only  obstruct.     Such  pas- 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH,  12,  13.        117 

sages,  it  is  claimed,  are  clearly  interpolations  and  can 
not  have  belonged  to  the  text  as  at  first  written  ;  they 
indicate  that  narratives  originally  distinct  have  been 
blended  together  in  the  existing  text.  Thus  George 
points  out  that  12:1-28  sunders  the  declaration  of 
God's  purpose  to  slay  the  first-born  from  its  execu- 
tion. It  is,  therefore,  an  interpolation,  and  in  the 
course  of  it  other  interpolations  occur,  as  ver.  2,  vs. 
8-1 1,  and  vs.  14-20;  vs.  43-50  are  similarly  condemned. 
Wellhausen  throws  out  as  later  additions  12:21-27, 
13:3-16. 

Every  parenthetic  statement,  every  digression  for 
the  sake  of  introducing  what  was  not  precisely  in  the 
line  of  previous  remarks,  however  important  in  its 
bearing  upon  it,  is  unhesitatingly  rejected  as  an  inter- 
polation. No  writing  was  ever  produced  that  could 
not  be  torn  to  pieces  by  such  treatment.  Passages 
can  be  sundered  from  the  most  closely  concatenated 
discourse  without  the  reader  being  aware  of  the  omis- 
sion. These  chapters  are  clearly  continuous ;  they 
pursue  one  constant  aim.  Nothing  is  irrelevant  to 
the  main  theme.  There  is  no  lack  of  coherence  in 
the  several  parts.  Every  paragraph  and  sentence  adds 
something  to  the  completeness  of  the  view  which  the 
writer  is  presenting,  and  contributes  to  the  general 
effect  of  the  whole.  The  critics  impute  this  to  the 
skill  of  the  Redactor,  or  final  editor,  who  has  selected 
his  materials  and  put  them  together  with  admirable 
adroitness.  But  if  he  has  really  done  what  they  at- 
tribute to  him,  he  has  performed  the  most  marvellous 
feat  in  all  literary  history.  He  has  taken  two  or  more 
writings  prepared  quite  independently  of  each  other, 


1 1 8         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12.  13. 

on  different  plans  and  with  different  aims  and  tenden- 
cies, and  preserving  the  identical  language  of  each 
unchanged,  he  has  fitted  them  together  like  a  choice 
piece  of  mosaic,  producing  what  has  all  the  appear- 
ance of  one  self-consistent,  indivisible  record,  and  was 
universally  so  regarded  until  under  the  critical  micro- 
scope its  infinitesimal  seams  and  sutures  were  de- 
tected. According  to  Dillmann  he  drew  ver.  28  from 
A;  29,  30  from  C;  31-33  from  B;  34-36  fromC;  ija 
from  A;  37^,  38  from  B;  39  from  C;  40,  41  from  A; 
42  from  B ;  and  out  of  all  this  patchwork  he  has 
wrought  a  seemingly  continuous  fabric.  The  wonder 
is  that  a  writer  who  was  capable  of  performing  a  task 
like  this  should  have  imposed  such  needless  trammels 
upon  himself,  and  have  worked  in  such  a  purely  me- 
chanical way,  instead  of  doing  what  could  have  been 
done  with  much  less  labor  and  with  a  more  satisfac- 
tory result,  recasting  the  materials  furnished  by  his 
sources  in  the  mould  of  his  own  thoughts  and  bring- 
ing forth  a  narrative  of  his  own. 

It  is  further  asserted  that  there  are  repetitions  in 
these  chapters,  which  justify  the  assumption  that  dis- 
tinct narratives  have  here  been  combined,  and  parallel 
accounts  of  the  same  transactions  have  been  retained 
from  each.  Thus  apart  from  the  supplementary  law  of 
the  Passover,  12  143-49,  which  the  critics  themselves 
recognize  as  such,  there  are  here  two  passages  that 
contain  directions  about  the  Passover,  two  about  Un- 
leavened Bread,  and  two  about  consecrating  the  first- 
born. But  these  are  not  superfluous  repetitions  in 
any  case.  God  first  gives  the  law  to  Moses,  which 
Moses  afterward   repeats  to  the  people.     Neither  of 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.         119 

these  would  be  complete  without  the  other.  No  one 
surely  but  a  critic  who  has  a  hypothesis  to  support 
would  dream  of  rending  them  asunder,  and  assigning 
them  to  distinct  documents.  Ch.  12  :  35,  36,  is  not 
a  needless  repetition  of  what  had  already  been  said, 
11:2,  3;  the  latter  is  the  divine  direction,  which, 
when  the  proper  time  arrived,  the  people  obeyed 
with  a  result  which  had  already  been  foretold,  3:21, 
22,  each  passage  having  its  own  special  appropriate- 
ness in  its  place.  And  the  evident  reference  of  one 
to  the  other  and  their  close  verbal  correspondence 
proves  rather  that  they  are  of  the  same  origin,  and 
that  they  belong  to  the  same  continuous  record.  Ch. 
12  :  51  repeats  the  last  clause  of  ver.  41,  but  it  is  for 
the  sake  of  resuming  the  narrative  after  a  brief  di- 
gression, just  as  is  done,  6  :  28-30,  comp.  vs.  10-12. 

In  the  simple  style  of  Hebrew  narrative  it  is  not 
unusual  for  the  writer  to  dwell  upon  matters  of 
special  interest,  recurring  to  them  and  restating  them 
that  his  readers  may  be  more  impressed  by  their 
magnitude  and  their  consequence.  It  hence  results 
that  in  connection  with  the  recital  of  stupendous 
events  like  the  flood,  the  plagues  of  Egypt,  the  cross- 
ing of  the  Jordan,  and  the  exodus,  there  is  an  amount 
of  repetition,  of  which  the  critics  are  not  slow  to 
avail  themselves,  that  they  may  make  out  the  show 
of  a  double  narrative.  But  if  the  Redactor  could 
introduce  so  many  repetitions,  why  might  not  the 
original  writer?  The  fact  is  that  repetitions  are  found 
in  each  of  the  so-called  documents  taken  singly,  such 
as  are  elsewhere  made  the  pretext  for  division. 
There  are  instances  of  this  even  in  these  chapters. 


I20         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

Ch.  12:  ig  repeats  what  had  already  been  stated  in 
ver.  15  ;  and  ver.  17  what  had  been  said  in  ver.  14; 
though  all  belong  to  the  Elohist. 

But  with  all  the  liberties  taken  of  sunderinp-  what 

o 

plainly  belongs  together,  and  though  passages  are 
pressed  into  the  service  as  duplicates  which  are  not 
such,  still  serious  gaps  remain  in  the  alleged  docu- 
ments. Thus  the  smiting  of  the  first-born  is  threat- 
ened in  the  Elohist,  12  :  12,  23,  but  this  document 
contains  no  record  of  its  having  been  performed.  It 
passes  at  once  from  the  observance  of  the  Passover, 
ver.  28,  to  the  unexplained  statement,  ver.  37,  ''  The 
children  of  Israel  journeyed  from  Rameses  to  Suc- 
coth,"  with  no  intimation  of  what  had  happened  in 
the  interval.  Yet  from  Num.  3:13,  8:17,  33:4, 
passages  belonging  to  the  Elohist,  it  is  plain  that  the 
smiting  of  the  first-born  had  been  mentioned  before ; 
but  that  mention  is  only  found  in  the  Jehovist. 
Kayser  insists  that  12:37^  is  indispensable  to  the 
Jehovist ;  but  the  majority  of  the  critics  are  agreed 
from  the  reference  to  it  in  Num.  33  :  5,  that  it  must 
belong  to  the  Elohist.  If  this  be  so,  then  the  Je- 
hovist speaks,  ver.  39,  of  Israel  having  brought  forth 
their  dough  out  of  Egypt,  without  any  previous  in- 
timation of  their  having  left  the  country  themselves ; 
and  he  speaks  incidentally,  13  :  17,  of  Pharaoh  hav- 
ing let  the  people  go,  with  no  prior  mention  that  he 
had  done  so.  And  upon  Kayser's  own  division  the 
Jehovist  explains,  12  :  11,  how  the  Passover  is  to  be 
eaten  without  any  intimation  of  what  the  Passover 
was  or  any  direction  to  prepare  it. 

We  have  now  reviewed  what  the  critics  have  to 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.         121 

say  in  favor  of  parcelling  these  chapters  among  dif- 
ferent writers,  so  far  as  that  is  based  upon  an  analysis 
of  the  chapters  themselves,  the  connection  of  thought 
and  the  relation  of  the  several  parts.  We  have  found 
that  by  sundering  them  on  different  lines  of  division, 
they  could  bring  out  very  various  representations 
of  what  these  assumed  writers  severally  contained ; 
which  simply  proves  that  the  part  is  not  equal  to 
the  whole,  and  that  different  portions  of  a  narrative 
taken  separately  do  not  contain  the  same  identical 
things.  The  alleged  discrepancies  in  the  laws,  as 
well  as  those  which  are  alleged  in  the  narrative,  and 
those  which  are  said  to  exist  between  the  laws  and 
the  narrative,  prove  upon  examination  to  admit  of 
ready  reconciliation.  The  charge  of  a  lack  of  con- 
nection between  the  parts,  such  as  might  imply  dis- 
location or  interpolation,  turns  out  to  be  groundless. 
The  repetitions,  real  or  pretended,  give  no  such  indi- 
cation of  parallel  narratives  as  might  awaken  the  sus- 
picion that  different  accounts  have  been  blended.  I 
think  it  may  be  safely  said,  notwithstanding  the 
persistence  and  ingenuity  with  which  these  points  are 
urged  by  the  critics,  that  they  do  not  severally  or 
collectively  yield  any  support  to  the  divisive  hypoth- 
esis, so  far  as  these  chapters  are  concerned.  I  shall 
not  refer  in  confirmation  of  this  opinion  to  those 
who  while  eminent  in  critical  learning  have  sturdily 
defended  the  old-fashioned  views  of  the  authority, 
inspiration  and  genuineness  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  lest  they  might  be  thought  partial  in  their 
judgments  in  this  matter.  But  I  may  refer  to  scholars 
who  are  certainly  competent  to  judge  in  a  question 


122         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  13,  13. 

of  this  sort,  and  who,  themselves  adherents  of  the  di- 
visive hypothesis,  can  not  be  suspected  of  any  undue 
leaning  to  traditional  opinions.  Thus  Winer  ^  says, 
"The  origin  of  the  feast  is  certainly  veiled  in  the 
dress  of  the  miraculous,  Ex.  I2  :  I2  f.,  29  ff.,"  which  to 
him  of  course  means  the  incredible ;  but  he  adds  : 
"  I  can  not  find  actual  contradictions  or  a  double  nar- 
rative in  that  chapter."  And  Bertheau  '  says,  "  The 
entire  12th  chapter  of  Exodus  gives  a  connected  nar- 
rative ;  nowhere  is  there  the  slightest  trace  of  dis- 
order; nowhere  anything  that  can  justify  the  sus- 
picion that  any  one  verse  stands  out  of  relation  to 
the  whole." 

^  "  Biblisches  Realworterbuch,"  1848,  art.  Pascha,  II.,  p.  197. 

•  '*  Die  sieben  Gruppcn  Mosaischcr  Gesetze,"  p.  58. 


IV. 

THE     UNITY     OF     EXODUS, 
CHAPTERS  12,  13,— (Continued). 


w 


IV. 

THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CHAPTERS  12, 13, 

(continued). 

E  have  considered  the  question  of  the  unity  of 
Exodus,  chapters   12,  13,  so  far  as  this  is  re- 
lated  to   the    contents    of    these    chapters.      After 
patiently  listening  to  all  that  the  critics  have  to  allege 
from  this  quarter,  we  have  discovered  no  reason  for 
suspecting  a  diversity  of  writers.     To  all  appearance 
they  form  one  coherent  and  consistent  narrative,  such 
as  might  be  supposed  to  come  from  one  mind  and 
from  one  pen.     It  is  written  with  one  evident  design 
that   is   steadfastly   adhered   to   throughout,  and  to 
which  all  the  parts  in  their  measure  contribute.     All 
is  skilfully  arranged,  and  the  whole  develops  regularly 
from  first  to  last.     There   is  unity  of   purpose  and 
plan,  and  unity  of  execution ;  and  so  far  as  can  be 
judged  from  this  point  of  view,  we  must  infer  unity 
of  authorship. 

The  unity  of  these  chapters  has  likewise  been  as- 
sailed, however,  from  another  side,  that  of  diction  and 
style.  It  is  said  that  there  are  such  differences  in  the 
use  of  words  and  phrases  in  different  sections  of  these 
chapters  as  betray  the  characteristic  habits  of  distinct 
writers.  It  will  be  necessary  consequently  to  examine 
what  is  alleged  upon  this  point  before  we  can  reach  a 

settled  conclusion. 

(125) 


126        THE  UNITY-  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

Before  proceeding  to  do  this,  two  preliminary  re- 
marks should  be  made. 

I.  The  burden  of  proof  lies  wholly  upon  those 
critics  who  afifirm  diversity  of  authorship.  The  ante- 
cedent presumption  is  all  decidedly  the  other  way. 
These  chapters  form  a  component  part  of  a  book 
which  has  from  the  beginning  been  uniformly  ascribed 
to  one  writer.  They  are  certainly  one  so  far  that  they 
have  a  common  theme,  which  is  consistently  and  con- 
secutively treated.  The  most  minute  and  searching 
examination  has  failed  to  detect  anything  inconsistent 
with  this  conclusion.  If,  now,  it  is  contended  that 
the  diction  and  the  phraseology  of  these  chapters  es- 
tablish diversity  of  authorship,  the  proof  demanded 
should  be  clear  and  strong  on  the  one  hand  in  pro- 
portion to  the  counter-evidence  which  has  already 
been  adduced,  and  which  is  to  be  overcome,  and  on 
the  other  to  the  ambiguity  and  doubt  which  is  apt  to 
overhang  this  species  of  proof.  There  is  nothing 
about  which  experts  will  differ  more  seriously  than 
the  identity  of  handwriting,  unless  the  case  is  so  evi- 
dent as  to  be  beyond  dispute.  And  so  with  identity 
of  style,  unless  the  indications  are  of  the  clearest  sort. 
They  who  have  the  longest  and  most  intimate  famili- 
arity with  an  author,  may  often  be  in  doubt  whether 
a  given  passage  is  from  his  pen,  if  it  is  to  be  judged 
of  from  style  alone,  unless  it  exhibits  some  marked 
eccentricities  or  peculiarities  of  manner.  The  diffi- 
culty is  of  course  enhanced  when  the  question  con- 
cerns an  author  in  a  foreign  tongue  and  belonging  to 
a  distant  age,  from  which  we  have  few  literary  remains. 
There  is  great  and  palpable  danger  of  drawing  wrong 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.        12; 

conclusions  from  plausible  appearances,  which  are  to 
be  accounted  for  in  another  way.  The  issue,  how- 
ever, is  a  simple  one.  There  is  no  evidence  of  di- 
versity of  authorship,  unless  it  is  found  in  differences 
of  style  and  language.  Are  these  differences  of  such 
a  nature,  and  withal  so  clear  and  unambiguous  that 
they  warrant  the  setting  aside  of  all  the  accumu- 
lated evidences  of  their  unity? 

My  2d  observation  is,  that  the  discussion  must  at 
present  be  limited  to  the  chapters  before  us.  We 
can  not  in  the  time  now  at  our  disposal  undertake  to 
range  over  the  entire  question  of  the  unity  of  the 
Pentateuch  and  the  possible  existence  of  two  Elohists, 
a  Jehovist,  a  Deuteronomist  and  a  Redactor,  together 
with  those  other  minor  characters  that  the  varied  exi- 
gencies of  the  divisive  hypothesis  in  different  hands 
have  summoned  to  its  service.  We  confine  our  atten- 
tion simply  to  these  two  chapters  and  the  application 
of  the  methods  and  results  of  the  divisive  criticism  to 
them.  We  are  not  now  dealing  with  the  hypothesis 
on  the  whole,  except  in  so  far  as  it  is  complicated 
with  this  particular  passage.  And  as  we  do  not  mean 
to  draw  any  conclusion  beyond  that  which  our 
premises  warrant,  we  shall  not  pronounce  upon  the 
hypothesis  at  large,  except  in  so  far  as  the  maxim 
holds,  Bx  uno  disce  omnes, 

Knobel,  who  has  shown  the  most  extraordinary 
and  painstaking  diligence  in  accumulating  and  tabu- 
lating the  criteria  of  authorship,  has  drawn  out  most 
formidable  lists  of  words  and  phrases,  alleged  to  be 
severally  peculiar  to  the  Elohist  and  the  Jehovist, 
Dillmann,  who  follows  in  the  same  line,  points  out 


128         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

twenty  or  more  in  the  Elohist  sections  of  these  chapters 
and  quite  a  number  in  the  Jehovist  sections,  as  indicative 
respectively  of  these  two  classes  of  sections  elsewhere. 
The  first  impression  produced  by  such  an  exhibit 
is  that  this  matter  is  altogether  overdone  and  the 
search  has  been  quite  too  successful.  It  is  out  of  all 
reasonable  probability  that  so  many  distinct  criteria 
of  style  should  be  heaped  together  in  so  small  a  com- 
pass. A  more  sparing  display  of  evidences  would 
have  been  really  more  impressive.  Shiploads  of  yel- 
low earth  are  not  so  plausible  a  counterfeit  of  gold  as 
though  the  material  were  less  abundant.  The  words 
here  gathered  up  are  the  proper  ones  to  express  the 
thought  which  the  writer  has  to  convey,  and  for  which 
in  many  cases  it  might  be  difficult  to  substitute  any 
other.  They  belong  to  the  common  stock  of  the 
language,  of  which  no  one  writer  has  the  monopoly. 
That  a  particular  writer  has  used  one  or  more  of 
these  words  before,  is  not  necessarily  a  proof  that 
another  passage  containing  them  is  from  him,  nor 
need  it  create  any  prejudice  against  his  authorship  of 
a  particular  passage  that  it  does  not  chance  to  con- 
tain them.  This  whole  critical  process  tacitly  assumes 
that  the  same  writer  must  constantly  use  the  same 
words  that  he  has  used  before  and  no  others.  And 
this  test  is  applied  in  a  purely  mechanical  manner, 
and  in  disregard  of  the  fact  that  modified  forms  of 
speech  are  not  invariably  suggestive  of  distinct 
authorship ;  they  may  indicate  a  difference  in  the 
shade  of  thought  intended ;  and  some  variety  of  ex- 
pression must  be  allowed  to  a  writer  who  has  any  fa- 
cility in  the  use  of  language. 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12.  13. 


129 


In  estimating  the  conclusiveness  of  this  critical 
reasoning  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  adduced,  it 
should  further  be  considered  that  whatever  positive 
and  constructive  force  there  may  be  in  the  arguments 
employed,  is  equally  available  in  defending  the  unity 
of  the  whole.  It  is  only  their  negative  and  more  in- 
tangible and  inconclusive  side  which  even  seems  to 
lie  against  it.  So  far  as  the  long  lists  of  words  and 
phrases  gathered  up  as  characteristic  of  one  or  other 
of  the  alleged  documents  tend  to  establish  a  mutual 
relation  or  common  authorship  of  the  particular  sec- 
tions which  compose  it,  they  serve  a  valuable  purpose 
for  him  who  maintains  the  common  authorship  of 
both,  for  the  whole  includes  its  parts.  The  only 
thing  in  the  argumentation  of  the  critics  that  need 
be  disputed  in  the  interest  of  unity,  is  the  hasty  and 
unwarranted  conclusion  which  they  draw  from  the 
absence  of  certain  words  from  one  class  of  sections 
that  are  found  in  the  other  class.  And  this  is  clearly 
invalid,  provided  the  fact  can  be  reasonably  explained 
on  other  grounds  than  diversity  of  authorship. 

The  delusive  character  of  these  critical  lists  of 
words  appears  from  the  readiness  with  which  such 
lists  can  be  made  out  of  any  length  where  they  have 
no  possible  significance.  If  two  paragraphs  be  selected 
at  random  in  the  writings  of  any  author,  there  will 
inevitably  be  words  in  each  which  are  not  in  the 
other.  Let  this  be  assumed  to  be  evidence  that  they 
are  the  productions  of  different  writers,  and  that  the 
words  and  phrases  peculiar  to  each  are  characteristic 
of  these  writers  severally.  Then  from  these  para- 
graphs as  a  starting-point  let  the  examination  be 
9 


130         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

extended  in  succession  to  other  paragraphs  and  sec 
tions  of  the  same  author,  and  these  be  assigned  to 
one  or  other  of  these  writers  according  as  they  do  or 
do  not  contain  the  characteristic  expressions  already 
determined  upon  for  each,  the  Hst  of  peculiar  terms 
and  phrases  growing  as  the  work  proceeds.  You 
have  here  the  whole  process  by  which  the  divisive 
hypothesis  was  originated.  While  proceeding  cau- 
tiously step  by  step  and  with  the  most  scrupulous 
regard  apparently  to  scientific  exactness,  the  authors 
of  the  hypothesis  have  themselves  created  the  very 
phenomena  to  which  they  point  as  triumphantly 
establishing  it.  The  division  has  been  made  on  a 
given  assumption,  and  why  should  it  be  thought  ex- 
traordinary, if  when  completed  it  accords  with  that 
assumption  ?  Particular  words  and  phrases  are  made 
the  criterion  for  determining  what  belongs  to  a  given 
writer.  Every  paragraph,  sentence  and  even  clause 
containing  any  of  these  is  in  consequence  successively 
assigned  to  this  writer ;  and  when  the  process  is  com- 
plete, the  critic  claims  that  as  a  demonstration  which 
is  after  all  only  his  own  work.  The  partition  corre- 
sponds with  the  hypothesis  simply  because  it  was 
made  by  the  hypothesis.  Whatever  plausibility  the 
latter  possesses  is  due  not  to  its  resting  on  a  solid 
basis  of  fact,  but  to  the  extraordinary  ingenuity  with 
which  it  has  been  devised  and  executed.  If  by  persist- 
ent pains  and  incessant  correction  the  critics  should 
finally  succeed  in  making  it  entirely  self-consistent, 
what  independent  evidence  is  there  after  all  of  its 
truth  ? 

We  pass  now  to  the  consideration  of  the  particular 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.         131 

words  and  phrases  in  the  chapters  before  us,  which 
are  held  to  be  indicative  of  different  hypo'ihetical 
writers. 

A  number  of  those  that  are  credited  to  the  Elohist 
are  adduced  in  the  following  passage  extracted  from 
Noldeke :  ^  *'  The  ritual  of  the  Passover  is  here  intro- 
duced in  the  first  instance,  indeed,  only  for  the  Israel- 
ites at  their  exodus ;  but  as  Abraham  receives  the 
law  of  circumcision  in  the  first  instance,  which  is 
then  immediately  extended  to  all  his  descendants, 
so  too  it  is  here.  We  have  accordingly  the  second 
example  of  legal  language,  which  prevails  further  on 
in  the  ritual  laws,  comp.,  e.g.,  tD^^^i^'H  V^  (between 
the  evenings),  Ex.  12:6;  ^^^  tipH  DD^nmb  0^ 
your  generations  an  ordinance  forever),  vs.  14,  17,  so 
Gen.  17  :  7  ;  tU^D  J^IDlO  (holy  convocation),  ver.  16  • 
^i^'^nn  tUSlsn  nniDDI  (that  soul  shall  be  cut  off),  ver. 
19  ;  Gen,  17 :  14,  etc.  It  should  specially  be  mentioned 
that  here  in  the  first  law  concerning  religion  given 
to  the  entire  people,  the  expression  XVXS^  '  congrega- 
tion '  (all  the  congregation  of  Israel),  occurs  for  the 
first  time,  which  thenceforward  becomes  for  the 
Grundschrift  (Elohist)  a  standing  designation  of  the 
assembled  people,  whilst  he  very  seldom  uses  the 
simple  i25?n  (people,  but  see  Num.  33  :  17  ;  Ex.  17  :  i)." 
To  which  may  be  added  from  Dillmann's  lists  the 
following  additional  legal  phrases,  all  which  are  in 
the  Pentateuch  restricted  exclusively  to  legal  sections, 
viz.,  DD^tn!2!25"l)2  bD!2  (^^^  ^^^  your  habitations),  Ex. 
12:20;  so  35  :  3;  Lev.  3  :  17,  7:26,  23  13,  14,  21,  31; 
Num.  35:29;  -iD^-l^  (stranger),  Ex.  12:43;  sc 
'  "  Untersuchungen,"  p.  41. 


132         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

Gen.  17:12,  27;  Lev.  22:25;  qDD-n5p)2  (bought 
for  money),  ver.  44;  so  Gen.  17:12,  13,  23,  27; 
v-ij^ll  n"lTi^  (born  in  the  land),  vs.  19,  48,  49,  and  oc- 
curring several  times  in  Leviticus  and  Numbers. 
But  inasmuch  as  these  words  and  phrases  are  pe- 
culiar to  the  ritual  law,  and  the  whole  of  that  law  is 
assigned  to  the  Elohist,  what  else  could  be  expected 
than  that  they  should  occur  only  in  the  Elohist  sec- 
tions and  never  in  those  of  the  Jehovist  ?  If  these 
words  and  such  as  these  can  be  pleaded  in  evidence 
of  diversity  of  authorship,  then  it  would  not  be  diffi- 
cult to  prove  upon  the  same  principles  that  no  legis- 
lator can  write  anything  except  law.  We  might  take 
Mr.  Gladstone's  bills  for  the  pacification  of  Ireland, 
for  the  extension  of  suffrage  and  other  measures 
introduced  during  his  administration,  and  discover- 
ing in  them  large  numbers  of  legal  terms  and  phrases 
which  are  nowhere  to  be  found  in  his  "  Studies  on 
Homer  and  the  Homeric  Age,"  demonstrate  with  as 
much  cogency  as  there  is  in  the  critical  argument 
which  we  are  now  examining,  that  this  latter  work 
has  been  falsely  ascribed  to  the  distinguished  prime 
minister.  If  the  uniform  absence  of  these  words  from 
every  paragraph  of  the  Elohist  himself  which  is  not 
devoted  to  ceremonial  legislation  does  not  prevent 
them  from  being  reckoned  his,  what  is  there  peculiar 
in  the  fact  that  they  are  likewise  absent  from  all  the 
paragraphs  of  the  Jehovist,  to  whom  no  ceremonial 
legislation  is  assigned  ?  We  may,  therefore,  dismiss 
this  class  of  words  entirely  as  having  no  bearing 
whatever  upon  the  question,  whether  the  so-called 
Jehovist  sections  of  these  chapters  are  by  another 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 


133 


hand  than  the  Elohist  sections  ;  and  only  remark  in 
passing  that  in  some  instances  it  is  only  by  the 
smallest  possible  loophole  that  admissions  are  evaded 
which  are  at  variance  with  the  hypothesis.  Thus 
the  Elohist,  12:14,  speaks  of  the  Passover  as  "an 
ordinance  forever,"  and  this  expression  is  reckoned 
among  those  which  are  peculiar  to  his  style  ;  the 
Jehovist,  indeed,  ver.  24,  calls  it  "  an  ordinance  to 
thee  and  to  thy  sons  forever,"  but  this  it  is  claimed 
is  such  a  deviation  from  the  preceding  that  it  can  not 
be  regarded  as  identical. 

Of  the  other  words  which  Dillmann  reckons  pecu- 
liar to  the  Elohist  there  occur  in  12  14  a  verb  and  a 
noun  of  kindred  signification.  The  former  ^133^ 
(make  your  count)  only  occurs  this  once  in  the  whole 
Old  Testament.  The  noun  nD!D)2  (number)  occurs 
but  once  elsewhere,  and  that  in  the  ritual  law,  Lev. 
27  :  23.  Another  derivative  is  found  in  but  a  single 
passage,  Num.  31  :  28,  37-41,  and  that  in  a  ritual  con- 
nection, where  it  is  applied  to  the  '*  tribute  "  paid  to 
the  sanctuary  from  the  spoils  of  war.  These  are  cer- 
tainly removed  by  the  infrequency  of  their  occur- 
rence from  the  category  of  favorite  expressions,  and 
hence  afford  no  indication  of  the  writer's  habitual 
style.  Moreover,  their  exclusive  connection  with  the 
ritual  law  prevents  us  from  looking  for  them  in  the 
Jehovist  sections.  A  prepositional  phrase  in  the 
same  verse,  12:4,  ^g^  (according  to),  is  also  classed  as 
Elohistic.  This  occurs  in  the  whole  Pentateuch  in 
this  sense  eight  times,'  four  of  which  only  are  outside 

^  Gen.  47  :  12  ;  Ex.  12  :  4,  16  :  16,  18  ;  Lev.  25  :  16,  27  :  16  ;  Num. 
9:17,  26:54. 


134         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

of  legal  sections.  Knobel  is  alone  in  assigning  the 
first  of  these,  Gen.  47:  12,  to  the  Elohist ;  Hupfeld, 
Schrader,  Noldeke,  Kayser  and  Dillmann  agree  that 
the  verse  is  not  his.  The  second  and  third,  Ex. 
16 :  16,  18,  are  not  his  either,  according  to  Wellhausen. 
So  that  if  we  admit  the  authority  of  this  latter  critic 
the  phrase  in  question  belongs  to  the  Elohist  but 
once  out  of  the  four  times  that  it  is  found  in  any 
other  than  a  legal  section.  We  can  hardly  accept 
this,  therefore,  as  a  distinctive  criterion  of  his  style. 
Again  we  are  pointed  to  tlJS^,  (soul),  in  the  sense  of 
"person,"  vs.  4,  15,  16,  19;  but  this  is  not  peculiar  to 
the  Elohist,  for  the  Jehovist  so  uses  it,  Gen.  2  : 7, 
and  according  to  Schrader  and  Kayser  in  Josh. 
10 :  28  ff.,  1 1  :  1 1  likewise  ;  and  there  is  a  general 
agreement  also  that  Gen.  14:21  does  not  belong  to 
the  Elohist.  Another  criterion  is  Qi^^tlJ  (judgments) 
which  occurs  in  all  in  the  Pentateuch  four  times,'  and 
always  in  relation  to  the  inflictions  divinely  sent  upon 
Egypt,  and  this  is  the  only  word  which  is  used  in  this 
precise  sense  in  the  Pentateuch;  tD''t3312J?2>  which 
is  of  frequent  occurrence,  and  is  rendered  by  the 
same  English  equivalent,  is  not  used  in  these  books 
in  the  sense  of  a  divine  infliction,  but  of  a  judicial 
sentence  or  an  ordinance.  Most  of  the  critics  claim 
d'^tDS'UJ  in  each  of  these  four  cases  for  the  Elohist; 
but  Kayser  assigns  one,  Ex.  12:  12,  to  the  Jehovist. 
As  the  thought  is  not  expressed  in  other  Jehovist 
sections,  there  is  no  occasion  for  the  use  of  the  word. 
It  is  further  reckoned  a  peculiarity  of  the  Elohist 
that  he  applies  the  term  ^115^^;^  (armies)  to  the  Is 

'  Ex.  6  :  6,  7  :  4,  12  :  12  ;  Num.  33  : 4. 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.         135 

raelites,  Ex.  12:  17,  41,  51  ;  so  6:26,  7:4,  and  else- 
where. But  the  Jehovist  also  uses  this  word  in  ap. 
plication  to  the  Philistine  army.  Gen.  26:  26,  and  Gen. 
21  :22,  32  is  not  Elohistic  ;  that  it  does  not  chance 
to  be  found  in  a  Jehovist  section  in  application  to 
Israel  must  be  purely  accidental,  since  he  uses  other 
military  terms  in  relation  to  them,  showing  that  he 
regarded  them  as  an  army,  e.g.,  13:18  (Schrader)  har- 
nessed, or  prepared  for  war,  14 :  19,  20  (Kayser)  camp. 
It  is  claimed  that  n^H^^T  DTSi^n  ip^  ^^^  ^^^  ^^ 
beast),  Ex.  13:2,  is  an  Elohistic  expression,  but  the 
Jehovist  combines  the  same  terms,  though  with  a 
different  preposition,  Ex.  9:25,  13  :  15,  and  the  Elo- 
hist  also  adopts  this  latter  form,  12:12. 

Two  expressions  are  yet  to  be  mentioned,  upon 
which  the  critics  lay  great  stress,  claiming  them  with 
confidence,  and  as  it  might  at  first  sight  appear,  with 
some  plausibility,  as  characteristic  of  the  Elohist. 
One  is  t3;23?  idiomatically  used  in  the  sense  of  "  self- 
same," Ex.  12  :  17,  41,  51  ;  and  the  other  1^5?  p  in 
the  pleonastic  declaration  *'  they  did  as  the  LORD 
commanded  ;  so  did  they,"  vs.  28,  50.  The  former 
unique  expression  occurs  nine  times '  besides  in  the 
Pentateuch,  uniformly  in  Elohist  passages  ;  it  also  oc- 
curs once  in  an  Elohist  passage  in  Joshua  (5:11)  and 
nowhere  in  any  subsequent  book  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment with  the  exception  of  four  times  in  Ezekiel,' 
whose  priestly  familiarity  with  the  law  shows  itself  so 
freely  in  the  adoption  of  its  language,  and  even  th« 

'Gen.  7:13,  17-23,  26;     Lev.  23:14,  21,  28,  29,  30;   Deut 

32:48. 
'  Ezek.  2  :  3,  24  :  2  bis^  40  :  i. 


136  THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12.  13. 

revival  of  its  obsolete  words  and  phrases.  It  is  an 
emphatic  form  of  speech,  which  was  but  sparingly 
used  and  limited,  as  a  brief  inspection  will  show,  to 
important  epochs  whose  exact  time  is  thus  signalized. 
It  marks  two  momentous  days  in  the  history,  that  on 
which  Noah  entered  into  the  ark,  Gen.  7:13,  and 
that  on  which  Moses,  the  leader  and.  legislator  of 
Israel,  went  up  Mount  Nebo  to  die,  Deut.  32  148.  It 
is  used  twice  in  connection  with  the  original  institu- 
tion of  circumcision  in  the  family  of  Abraham,  Gen. 
17:23,  26;  three  times  in  the  chapters  before  us  of 
the  day  that  the  Lord  brought  Israel  out  of  Egypt, 
and  five  times  in  Lev.  23,  the  chapter  ordaining  the 
sacred  festivals,  to  mark  severally  the  day  on  which 
the  sheaf  of  the  first-fruits  was  presented  in  the  Pass- 
over week,  ver.  14,  (which  is  emphasized  afresh  on  the 
observance  of  the  first  Passover  in  Canaan,  Josh. 
5:11);  also  the  day  on  which  the  two  wave  loaves 
were  brought  at  the  feast  of  Weeks,  ver.  21  ;  and 
with  triple  repetition  the  great  day  of  Atonement,  vs. 
28-30.  If  now  all  the  emphatic  moments  calling  for 
the  use  of  this  phrase  have  by  the  critics  been  given 
to  the  Elohist,  it  might  not  seem  surprising  if  the 
Jehovist  had  not  employed  it  at  all.  And  yet  it  is 
found  once  in  an  admitted  Jehovist  section.  Josh. 
10:27,'  showing  that  it  can  have  place  in  these  sec- 
tions as  well  as  the  others,  if  there  is  occasion  for  its 
employment.  This  word  consequently  affords  no 
ground  of  discrimination  and  no  plea  for  division. 
The  other  Elohist  expression  above  referred  to  ac- 

*  Schrader  and  Kayser  assign  this  verse  to  the  Jehovist :  Knobel 
to  his  Kriegsbuch. 


777^  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.         137 

cords,  it  is  said,  with  his  formal,  precise  and  repetit.ous 
style.  It  occurs  eleven  times '  in  the  Pentateuch, 
and  in  a  slightly  modified  form  twice  more ;  and  in 
every  single  instance  it  is  referred  by  the  critics  to 
the  Elohist.  It  is  not  once  found  in  a  Jehovist  sec- 
tion. The  impression  which  such  a  statement  is  cal- 
culated to  produce,  is  not  a  little  diminished,  however, 
when  we  inquire  a  little  further  into  the  actual  state 
of  the  case. 

I.  This  expression  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  unmean- 
ing tautology  and  dismissed  as  the  mere  habit  of  a 
diffuse  and  repetitious  writer.  In  the  vast  majority 
of  instances  in  which  attention  is  drawn  to  the  cor- 
respondence of  action  with  the  divine  command,  the 
Elohist  himself  uses  a  briefer  formula ;  often  simply 
"as  the  Lord  commanded,"'  or  "they  did  as  the 
Lord  commanded,"^  or  "  they  did  so  as  the  LORD 
commanded,"*  or  "as  the  LoRD  commanded,  so  they 
did."^  The  larger  and  fuller  form,  "they  did  accord- 
ing to  all  that  the  Lord  commanded  them,  so  did 

^  Gen.   6:22;    Ex.   7:6,   12:28,   50,  39:32,  43,  40:16;    Num. 

1  :  54,  8  :  20,  17  :  II  ;  and  with  a  slight  modification,  Num.  2  :  34, 
5:4. 

^  Gen,  7  :  16,  21:4;  Ex.  16  :  34,  39  :  i,  5,  7,  21,  26,  29,  31,  40  :  19, 
21,  23,  25,  27,  29,  32  ;  Lev.  8  : 9,  13,  17,  21,  29,  9 :  10 ;  Num.  i :  19, 

2  :  33,  3  :  42,  51,  4  :  49,  »5  :  36,  20  :  9,  31  :  7,  41,  47  ;  Josh.  21 :  8. 
Not  in  Elohist  sections,  Gen.  7:9;  Ex.  34  :  4  ;  Josh.  10  :  40. 

'  Lev.  8:4,  16  :  34  ;  Num.  20  :  27,  27  :  22,  31  :  31  ;  Deut.  34  :  9,  and 
with  a  slight  modification  Ex.  38  :  22,  Lev.  8  :  36,  Jehovist  Gen.  7 :  5. 
Knobel  assigns  Lev.  24 :  23  to  his  Kriegsbuch,  others  give  it  to  the 
Elohist. 

*  Ex.  7  :  10,  20 ;  Num.  8  :  3. 

^  Ex.  39  :  42  ;  Num.  8  :  22,  9  :  5,  36  :  10  ;  Josh.  14  :  5.  Jehovist,  01 
according  to  Knobel,  the  Kriegsbuch,  Josh.  11 :  15. 


138  THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12.  13. 

they/*  is  in  the  highest  measure  emphatic.  It  is  re- 
served for  the  weightiest  matters  and  for  commands 
of  the  utmost  consequence,  which  were  obeyed  in  the 
most  punctual  and  scrupulous  manner.  There  is  but 
one  example  of  it  in  the  entire  book  of  Genesis.  It 
is  in  relation  to  the  exactness  with  which  Noah  fol- 
lowed the  divine  directions  in  his  preparations  for 
the  flood.  "  Thus  did  Noah ;  according  to  all  that 
God  commanded  him,  so  did  he."  It  next  occurs  of 
Moses  and  Aaron,  when  they  were  charged  to  con- 
front Pharaoh  and  lead  the  children  of  Israel  out  of 
Egypt,  Ex.  7 :6.  It  is  alleged,  however,  that  the 
Jehovist  speaks  much  more  simply,  and  with  less  for- 
mality and  emphasis,  when  he  describes  Noah's  obe- 
dience to  the  divine  injunctions.  He  merely  says, 
7  :  5,  ''and  Noah  did  according  unto  all  that  the  LORD 
commanded  him  ";  and  if  ver.  9  is  really  Jehovistic, 
for  the  critics  are  divided  about  it,  he  there  expresses 
himself  more  briefly  still,  ''  as  God  had  commanded 
Noah."  The  altered  formula  is  no  indication,  how- 
ever, of  a  diversity  of  writers,  but  rather  the  reverse. 
The  first  time  that  Noah's  compliance  with  the  divine 
command  is  referred  to,  it  is  stated  in  the  strongest 
terms.  But  a  single  employment  of  the  lengthened 
phrase  of  special  emphasis  was  sufficient  in  this  con- 
nection. Other  statements  of  the  same  kind,  less 
elaborately  made,  could  then  follow  in  their  appro- 
priate place.  Thus  the  emphatic  formula  connected 
with  the  general  statement  in  Ex.  39 :  32  is  preceded, 
and  that  in  Ex.  40 :  16,  is  followed  by  numerous  partic- 
ular statements  with  the  briefer  formula,  and  no  one 
suspects  a  difference  of  authorship  on  this  account, 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12.  13.  139 

2.  Mention  has  been  made  of  two  historical  occa- 
sions of  great  moment,  respecting  which  the  length- 
ened formula  is  employed.     With  these  exceptions  it 
is  found  exclusively  in  legal  contexts.    It  occurs  twice 
in  connection  with  the  first  observance  of  the  Pass- 
over, Ex.  12  :  28,  50  ;  it  is  three  times  connected  with 
the  construction  and  setting  up  of  the  sacred  taber- 
nacle, Ex.  39 :  42,  43>  40 :  16 ;  three  times  with  arrange- 
ments respecting  the  camp  hallowed  by  God's  pres- 
ence. Num.  I  :  54,  2  :  34,  5  : 4 ;  once  with  the  setting 
apart  of  the  Levites,  Num.  8  :  20 ;  and  once  with  the 
sanction  divinely  given  to  the  Aaronic  priesthood, 
Num.  17:11.     In  fact  an  overwhelming  proportion 
of  even  the  briefer  formulae  relate  to  obedience  ren- 
dered to  ritual  enactments.    It  ceases  to  be  surprising, 
therefore,  that  the  longer  and  more  emphatic  formula 
is  absent  from  the  Jehovist  sections,  inasmuch  as  the 
ritual  law  is  all  assigned  to  the  Elohist ;  in  fact  it  is 
but  rarely  that  they  have  occasion  to  use  any,  even 
of  the  briefer  formulae. 

3.  The  reason  why  the  long  and  emphatic  formula 
is  never  found  in  a  Jehovist  connection  will  become 
still  more  apparent  when  it  is  added  that  it  is  by  rule 
referred  to  the  Elohist  simply  on  the  ground  of  its 
occurrence,  apart  from  any  other  reason,  and  even  in 
the  face  of  strong  reasons  to  the  contrary.  A  partic- 
ularly clear  example  of  this  is  found  in  Ex.  12:28, 
which  is  preceded  and  follov/ed  by  a  Jehovist  context, 
with  the  former  of  which  it  is  intimately  united,  to 
^  which  it  evidently  refers  and  from  which  all  its  mean- 
ing is  derived.  And  yet  it  is  torn  from  this  connec- 
tion and  linked  with  a  distant  Elohist  paragraph  solely 


I40  THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

and  avowedly  because  it  contains  the  formula  in  ques- 
tion.  This  is  one  of  the  gross  improprieties,  in  which 
the  critics  are  constantly  indulging,  as  though  clause? 
and  sentences  could  be  torn  from  their  proper  con- 
nection ad  libitum  and  attached  to  any  other  that 
the  critic  may  please,  and  the  altered  meaning  be 
forced  upon  them,  which  may  result  from  the  dis- 
placement. Thus  in  this  same  chapter  it  is  proposed 
to  transfer  vs.  14-20  from  its  proper  place  so  as  to 
precede  the  formula  in  ver.  50,  and  make  this  latter 
refer  to  it  instead  of  to  the  paragraph  which  it  act- 
ually follows.  And  in  the  same  way  Kayser  and  Dill- 
mann  cut  9:  35  and  10:20  away  from  the  context  in 
which  they  stand,  and  assign  these  verses  thus  iso- 
lated to  another  hypothetical  writer  with  missing  hy- 
pothetical contexts  upon  which  they  are  assumed  to 
have  depended ;  and  this  for  no  ground  whatever  but 
the  exigencies  of  a  hypothesis  which  demands  it.  The 
hypothesis  must  rule,  whatever  stands  in  the  way.  If 
the  text  can  not  be  made  to  square  with  the  critical 
assumptions,  it  is  easy  enough  to  create  a  text  that 
will,  by  means  of  erasures,  additions  and  dislocations. 
The  whole  procedure  should  be  met  by  an  indig- 
nant protest.  If  the  Redactor  was  guilty  of  the  un- 
meaning transpositions  and  eliminations  which  are 
attributed  to  him,  removing  sentences  and  clauses 
from  their  original  place  in  the  sources  from  which 
he  drew,  linking  them  with  a  different  context  so  as 
tr  alter  their  meaning  entirely,  he  was  either  a  knave 
or  a  fool ;  and  it  is  hopeless  to  undertake  to  disen- 
tangle the  medley  he  has  made.  The  fact  is  that 
these  imputations  on  the  part  of  the  critics  arc  wholly 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.  141 

gratuitous.  The  text,  according  to  all  fair  laws  of 
honest  dealing,  must  be  interpreted  as  it  stands,  at 
least  until  some  better  reason  can  be  shown  for  re- 
modelling it  than  that  an  unproved  critical  hypothesis 
demands  it.  Otherwise  all  certainty  of  interpretation 
is  destroyed,  and  the  text  and  its  meaning  become 
the  plaything  of  the  critic's  capricious  fancy.  A  hy- 
pothesis which  is  obliged  to  resort  to  such  violent 
and  unauthorized  measures  writes  its  own  condem- 
nation. If  the  truth  of  the  divisive  hypothesis  were 
for  the  moment  to  be  conceded,  and  we  were  to  as- 
sume the  existence  of  a  Redactor  to  whom  we  owe 
the  present  form  of  the  text,  nevertheless  it  must  be 
insisted  upon  that  it  yields  the  correct  sense  as  it 
now  stands,  saving  any  errors  that  may  have  arisen 
in  its  transmission.  Any  partition  which  is  destruc- 
tive of  the  plain  sense  of  the  work  which  he  has  left 
us,  in  whole  or  in  part,  is  an  unwarrantable  impeach- 
ment of  his  integrity,  and  a  substitution  of  the  critic's 
own  whimsical  notions  for  the  statements  of  that  an- 
cient authority  with  which  he  is  professedly  dealing. 
Whether  the  divisive  hypothesis  be  correct  or  not, 
the  position  can  not  be  surrendered  that  the  emphatic 
formula  in  12:28  must  have  the  reference,  which  it 
is  evidently  designed  to  have.  It  then  of  necessity 
becomes  part  of  a  Jehovist  paragraph,  and  the  for- 
mula in  question  ceases  to  be  a  criterion  for  distin- 
guishing the  Elohist. 

The  criteria  of  the  Elohist  thus  far  considered  lie 
mostly  outside  of  the  plane  of  the  Jehovist,  who 
offers  no  equivalents  or  substitutes  for  them.  All 
<hat  is  claimed  is  that  they  are  found  in  one  class  of 


142  THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

passages  and  not  in  the  other.  We  have  seen  that 
their  absence  is  readily  explicable  on  other  grounds 
than  that  of  diversity  of  writers.  It  is  alleged,  how- 
ever, that  there  are  things  common  to  both  which 
each  invariably  describes  by  a  different  term  from  the 
other.  The  most  plausible  instance  of  this  is  found 
in  their  respective  mode  of  naming  the  months.  As 
members  of  the  religious  society  of  the  Friends  are 
in  the  habit  of  numbering  the  months  to  which  the 
rest  of  the  community  generally  apply  definite  names, 
so  it  is  said  that  among  the  Israelites  the  priestly 
usage  was  to  number  the  months  of  the  ecclesiastical 
year  while  definite  names  were  applied  ro  those  of  the 
civil  year,  which  began  at  quite  a  different  season.  Of 
this  it  is  said,  there  is  evidence  in  the  chapters  before 
us.  Chapter  I2:2  intimates  a  change  in  the  annual 
reckoning,  that  thenceforward  a  month  was  to  stand 
at  the  beginning  of  the  year,  which  had  not  done  so 
previously.  Now  in  accord  with  this  the  Elohist 
document  or  the  Priest  Code  fixes  the  Passover  in- 
variably in  the  first  month  ;  the  Jehovist  as  invariably 
in  the  month  Abib. 

In  regard  to  this,  however,  it  should  be  observed, 
I,  that  there  is  no  inconsistency  in  the  same  person 
employing  both  terms  whether  in  the  same  or  in  dif- 
ferent connections,  as  was  done,  for  example,  by  the 
author  of  the  Books  of  Kings,  who  in  his  account  of 
the  building  and  dedication  of  Solomon's  temple 
mentions,  i  Kin.  6:i,  the  month  Zif,  which  is  the 
second  month,  verse  38,  the  month  Bui,  which  is  the 
eighth  month,  and  8  : 2,  the  month  Ethanim,  which  is 
the  seventh  month. 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.         143 

2.  Abib,  as  the  name  of  a  month,  only  occurs  in 
connection  with  the  Passover  or  feast  of  Unleavened 
Bread.  It  is  so  found  three  times  in  Exodus  in  pas- 
sages assigned  to  the  Jehovist,  and  twice  in  a  verse  of 
Deuteronomy,  16:  i,  evidently  based  on  the  preced- 
ing. The  Jehovist  uses  this  name  nowhere  else,  and 
no  other  month  is  referred  to  by  name  anywhere  in 
the  Pentateuch.  Hitzig  conjectured  that  Abib  was 
the  Hebrew  form  of  Epiphi,  the  eleventh  month  of 
the  Egyptian  year,  which,  however,  corresponded 
with  our  June  or  July  rather  than  March  or  April.^ 
The  name  in  Hebrew  means  "  green  ears,"  and  was 
applied  to  the  month  because  it  fell  in  the  season  of 
ripening  grain.  At  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  a 
formal  offering  was  made  of  the  earliest  sheaf  from 
the  first-fruits  of  the  harvest,  an  association  which 
naturally  led  to  the  use  of  this  name  in  that  connec- 
tion. 

3.  It  is  further  observable  that  the  month  is  never 
called  Abib  when  the  day  of  the  monT;h  is  mentioned. 
Dillmann  accordingly  conjectures  that  Abib,  Zif, 
Ethanim  and  Bui  were  months  of  the  solar  year  and 
were  incommensurable  with  lunar  months  which  were 
numbered.  Others  are  of  opinion  that  Abib'  was  the 
only  month  bearing  a  name  in  the  Mosaic  period,  and 

'  As  the  Egyptian  did  not  correspond  precisely  with  the  solar 
year  and  according  to  ancient  testimony,  the  priests  refused  to  rec- 
tify the  calendar  by  intercalation,  it  was  an  annus  vagus,  whose 
months  in  a  given  period  of  time  made  a  circuit  of  all  the  seasons. 
Hence  Hitzig  infers  that  at  one  time  Epiphi  and  Abib  exactly  coin- 
cided. 

^  In  the  nomenclature  of  a  later  period  this  month  was  called 
Nisan. 


144         ^-^-^  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

that  this  was  not  so  much  a  proper  name  cf  the 
month,  as  indicative  of  the  season  of  the  year  to  which 
it  belonged.  Whatever  be  thought  of  these  opinions, 
the  fact  remains  that  in  every  instance  in  which  a 
specific  date  is  given  the  month  is  numbered.  Ac- 
cordingly in  12  :i8  the  time  for  observing  the  feast 
of  Unleavened  Bread  is  stated  to  be  in  the  first  month 
from  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month  until  the  one- 
and-twentieth.  So  in  Leviticus  23  and  in  Numbers 
28  and  29  where  the  several  festivals  of  the  year 
are  recited  in  order  and  the  exact  time  of  each  is  given 
severally,  the  same  nomenclature  is  maintained.  But 
in  Ex.  13  : 4  Moses  said  to  the  people  on  the  day  of 
the  exodus,  which,  therefore,  there  was  no  occasion 
to  specify  further,  "  This  day  came  ye  out  in  the 
month  Abib."  So  in  Ex.  23:  14,  34:  18,  where  the 
period  of  the  feast  is  only  spoken  of  generally  as  *'  the 
time  appointed  of  the  month  Abib,"  it  was  natural  to 
use  the  name  suggestive  of  the  season  of  ripening 
grain,  especially  as  the  other  feasts  are  in  the  same 
connection  associated  not  with  definite  dates,  but  with 
the  harvesting  of  the  crops  and  the  ingathering  of  the 
fruits.  The  same  reason  holds  also  in  the  case  of 
Deut.  16:  I. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  alternation  of  names 
finds  its  explanation  in  the  passages  in  which  it  oc- 
curs, and  requires  no  assumption  of  the  habit  of  dif- 
ferent writers  to  account  for  it.  The  allegation  that 
the  Elohist  says  "land  of  Egypt,"  12 :  i,  etc.,  and  the 
Jehovist  "Egypt"  simply,  12:27,  etc.,  13:3,  etc., 
overlooks  the  Elohist  passage,  12:40,  and  the  Jeho- 
vist, 12:29,  13:15,  where  this  is  precisely  reversed. 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.         145 

So,  likewise,  that  ii*)nt25)2  is  used  by  the  Elohist, 
12:  13,  in  the  abstract  sense  of  "destruction"  and  by 
the  Jehovist,  ver.  23,  in  the  concrete  sense  of  '*  de- 
stroyer "  is  not  perfectly  certain,  and  it  would  be  of 
no  sort  of  consequence  if  it  were.  And  while  niii? 
(service)  is  repeatedly  used  by  the  Elohist  of  the  ritual 
in  general,  whereas  the  Jehovist  here,  12  :  25,  26,  13  :  5, 
applies  it  to  the  individual  rite  of  the  Passover,  it  is 
to  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  was  all  of  the  ritual  that 
had  up  to  that  time  been  instituted.  It  is  said  to  be 
peculiar  to  the  Jehovist  to  call  Egypt  "  the  house  of 
bondage "  or  "  bondmen,"  though  this  occurs  in  all 
but  four  times  in  passages  assigned  to  him,  viz.,  twice 
in  the  chapters  before  us,  13  : 3,  14,  once  in  the  pref- 
ace to  the  ten  commandments,  20 : 2,  and  once  in 
Joshua's  farewell  address.  Josh.  24:  17;  also  to  speak 
of  Canaan  as  "  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey," 
Ex.  13:5,  though  Noldeke  and  Schrader  refer  one  of 
the  verses  in  which  this  phrase  is  found.  Num.  14:8, 
to  the  Elohist,  excepting  only  this  one  expression ; 
and  "the  land  of  the  Canaanites,  and  the  Hittites  and 
the  Amorites  and  the  Hivites  and  the  Jebusites," 
13:5,  though  he  may  also  say  simply  "  the  land  of  the 
Canaanites,"  ver.  1 1.  It  is  said  that  it  is  the  Jehovist 
alone  who  speaks  of  the  LORD  as  swearing,  13:5? 
though  an  oath  of  the  LORD  is  in  Num.  14:  28  recited 
by  the  Elohist.  It  is  said  that  the  preposition 
^1^3?|2  (because  of)  is  peculiar  to  the  Jehovist,  and  it 
does  not  chance  to  occur  in  Elohist  sections ;  so 
•^n^S  in  the  sense  of  "in  time  to  come,"  Ex.  13:  14, 
though  it  is  so  used  by  him  in  but  one  other  passage 
in  the  Pentateuch,  Gen.  30 :  33  ;  and  5"l!n!J  rendered 
10 


146        THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

*  quarters,'  Ex.  13:7,  elsewhere  commonly  'borders 
or  '  coasts,'  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  belongs 
to  the  Elohist,  Gen.  23  :  17,  Num.  33  144,  and  repeat- 
edly in  the  course  of  Num.  34  and  35  ;  D"'DpT  (elders), 
12:21,  though  the  Elohist  has  it,  Lev.  4:  15,  9:  i  ; 
"nnSltD'^l  "lip"""!  (bowed  the  head  and  worshipped), 
12  :  27,  though  according  to  Noldeke  and  Wellhausen 
this  does  not  here  belong  to  the  Jehovist,  and  accord- 
ing to  Tuch  and  Stahelin  the  Elohist  uses  it  in  Gen. 
43  :  28.  Knobel  includes  among  Jehovistic  expres- 
sions "li^-j  (footman),  12:37,  and  "2^^  (mixed  multi- 
tude), ver.  38,  though  the  former  occurs  but  once  be- 
sides in  the  Pentateuch,  Num.  11  :  21,  and  the  latter 
is  nowhere  else  to  be  found  in  the  Pentateuch  in  this 
sense ;.  and  even  here  Noldeke  attributes  them  to  the 
Redactor,  and  Dillmann  to  the  other  Elohist. 

I  believe  that  in  this  long  and  tedious  review  every- 
thing has  been  gathered  up  that  the  critics  allege  in 
respect  to  the  diction  of  these  chapters.  And  this  is 
absolutely  all  the  ground  there  is  for  parcelling  them 
between  these  supposititious  writers.  Many  of  the 
words  classed  as  characteristic  of  these  writers  re- 
spectively are  of  so  rare  occurrence  that  the  statement 
is  unmeaning.  In  almost  every  instance  what  is  de- 
clared to  be  peculiar  to  one  writer  is  nevertheless 
found  in  passages  attributed  to  the  other.  The 
presence  or  absence  of  words  is  noted  in  a  purely  me- 
chanical way,  irrespective  of  the  question  whether 
there  was  any  occasion  for  their  employment.  And 
where  different  terms  are  employed  for  the  same 
thing  the  reason  is  sought  in  unmeaning  differences 
of  style,  when  they  are  discriminatingly  used  accord- 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.        147 

ing  to  the  requirements  of  the  case  or  the  shade  of 
thought  to  be  expressed.  There  is  no  evidence  what- 
ever of  divergent  styles  or  the  various  diction  of  dis- 
tinct writers.  Differences  occur  in  the  paragraphs 
assigned  by  the  critics  to  the  same  writer,  which 
would  otherwise  have  been  deemed  significant,  as 
when  the  Jehovist  says  ^n  OTn^I)  13- 3>  H>  i^  (by 
strength  of  hand),  whereas  his  customary  phrase  is 
npTn  T^i  (by  a  strong  hand),  6:1,  13:9.  Or  when 
he  describes  the  limits  of  the  last  plague,  11:5,'*  from 
the  first-born  of  Pharaoh  that  sitteth  upon  his  throne 
unto  the  first-born  of  the  maid-servant  that  is  behind 
the  mill," — but  in  12:29,  "from  the  first-born  of 
Pharaoh  that  sat  on  his  throne  to  the  first-born  of  the 
captive  that  was  in  the  dungeon."  Again,  certain 
passages  speak  of  the  LORD  as  smiting  the  first- 
born, while  others  describe  him  in  more  general  terms 
as  smiting  the  land  of  Egypt  or  the  Egyptians.  The 
attempt  has  here,  in  fact,  been  made  to  show  that 
there  were  two  distinct  traditions,  according  to  one 
of  which  the  plague  was  due  to  natural  causes,  and 
according  to  the  other  it  was  miraculously  limited  to 
the  first-born.  But  the  way  is  blocked  by  the  fact 
that  both  forms  of  statement  occur  alike  in  the 
Elohist  (12:12,  13),  and  the  Jehovist  (11:5,  12:23, 
27,  29). 

Inasmuch  as  the  critics  arrange  the  paragraphs  to 
suit  themselves  and  use  the  utmost  license  in  so  doing, 
the  marvel  is  that  they  are  only  able  after  all  to  make 
out  so  poor  a  case. 

Our  examination  has  been  limited  to  the  diction  of 
the  chapters  specially  before  us,  and  I  think  it  may 


148         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

be  fairly  said  that  nothing  has  been  adduced  of  an> 
cogency  to  break  the  conclusion  previously  reached 
from  the  consideration  of  their  contents,  that  they 
form  one  indivisible  narrative.  These  chapters  cer- 
tainly yield  no  support  to  the  divisive  hypothesis. 
Whether  it  is  applicable  to  other  portions  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch is  not  the  question  now  before  us  ;  but  cer- 
tainly so  far  as  we  have  yet  been  able  to  see,  it  has 
no  application  here. 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  adduce  the  verdict 
which  Graf,^  the  founder  of  the  most  recent  critical 
school,  passes  upon  the  prevalent  mode  of  dissection 
by  means  of  diction  and  style.  "  To  base  a  determin- 
ation of  age,"  he  says,  "  on  bare  peculiarities  of  lan- 
guage, especially  in  things  that  concern  legal  relations, 
in  which  the  form  of  expression  is  not  arbitrarily  em- 
ployed by  the  writer,  is  precarious.  When  the  rela- 
tionship of  certain  sections  is  assumed  on  perhaps  in- 
sufficient criteria,  and  then  other  sections  are  added 
to  them  because  of  some  similar  linguistic  phenomena, 
and  from  these  again  further  and  further  conclusions 
are  drawn,  one  easily  runs  the  risk  of  moving  in  a 
vicious  circle."  ''  The  reference  of  every  section  and 
every  individual  verse  to  its  origin,  which  Ewald  and 
Knobel  have  attempted,  will  certainly  never  be  ac- 
complished in  a  perfectly  satisfactory  and  convincing 
way,  and  is  often  dependent  on  subjective  opinion." 

I  know  of  but  one  other  argument  which  has  been 

urged  in  favor  of  accepting  the  results  of  the  divisive 

criticism ;  and  that  is  drawn  from  the  agreement  of 

the  critics  among  themselves,  not  indeed   as  to   all 

*  "  Die  Geschichtlichen  Biicher,"  pp.  2,  3. 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.         1 49 

minute  details,  but  as  to  their  general  conclusions. 
The  early  efforts  of  the  critics,  it  is  said,  were  tenta- 
tive, and  mistakes  were  made  from  which  their  suc- 
cessors have  receded.   But  advances  have  been  steadily 
made  until  the  hypothesis  now  rests  on  a  soHd  basis 
and  is  clearly  defined  in  all  main  and  essential  points. 
It  is  frankly  confessed  that  the  most  eminent  and 
in  fact  nearly  all  the  critics  of  Germany  who  easily 
lead  the  van  in  this  branch  of  Biblical  scholarship,  have 
declared  with  remarkable  unanimity  in  favor  of  what 
has  been  called  the  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch.     And 
it  is  further  confessed  that  there  is  a  general  agree- 
ment among  them  in  certain  leading  points.     But  we 
must  for  the  present  at  least  decline  to  accept  a  vote 
of  the  majority  as  an  infallible  test  of  truth,  for  the 
following  reasons : 

I.  That  measure  of  agreement  which  exists  among 
the  divisive  critics  is  readily  accounted  for  without 
conceding  the  truth   of  the  hypothesis.     It  is  con- 
ditioned by  the  nature  of  the  case  and  follows  from 
the  primary  assumption  which  they  hold  in  common. 
If  an  expedition  to  the  North  Pole  is  sent  out  by  the 
Baffin's  Bay  route,  it  must  follow  a  given  track  de- 
termined by  the  experience  of  preceding  navigators. 
If  practicable  at  all,  it  is  only  upon  that  Hne.     But 
whether  the  expedition  will  after  all  succeed  in  reach- 
ing its  objective  point,  is  another  matter.     Any  at- 
tempt to  explain  the  movements  of  the  planetary  sys- 
tem by  the  Cartesian  hypothesis  of  vortices  would 
involve  the  necessity  of  accepting  this  hypothesis  m 
all  its  details.     An  ingenious  chess-player  has  solved 
the  complicated  problem  of  the  knight  and  has  shown 


150         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH,  12,  13. 

how  that  erratic  piece  can  be  made  to  touch  succes- 
sively every  square  of  the  board  ;  other  solutions  may 
be  feasible,  but  they  have  never  yet  been  devised.  If 
a  military  road  is  to  be  constructed  across  the  Alps 
at  a  given  point,  the  topography  must  first  be  ascer- 
tained and  then  engineering  science  will  determine 
which  must  necessarily  be  the  most  practicable  route. 
The  partition  of  the  Pentateuch  upon  the  principles 
of  the  divisive  hypothesis  is  a  definite  problem,  upon 
which  the  highest  order  of  intellect,  learning  and  in- 
genuity has  been  long  and  persistently  employed. 
The  labor  and  patient  thought  expended  upon  it  have 
been  prodigious.  Every  word  and  sentence  of  the 
Pentateuch  has  been  studied  with  microscopic  minute- 
ness, the  best  possible  groupings  have  been  sought 
within  the  limits  imposed  by  the  hypothesis,  the  in- 
tricacies of  the  case  have  been  threaded  with  the  ut- 
most care,  weak  points  have  been  guarded,  assailable 
positions  as  far  as  practicable  avoided,  and  everything 
seized  upon  that  can  add  to  the  apparent  strength  or 
plausibility  of  the  scheme.  The  result  is  a  marvellous 
specimen  of  artistic  contrivance.  Of  course  it  has  all 
the  while  been  becoming  more  perfect  as  a  hypothesis. 
The  critics  have  been  quick  to  learn  by  the  blunders 
of  their  predecessors.  No  one,  it  may  be  presumed, 
will  ever  renew  Vater's  fragmentary  hypothesis,  once 
so  fashionable.  A  general  might  as  well  undertake 
to  storm  a  fort  by  marching  his  unsheltered  army 
where  they  will  be  exposed  to  the  fire  of  the  garrison 
at  every  point  and  mowed  down  as  rapidly  as  they 
can  advance.  As  the  halting-places  of  the  document- 
ary hypothesis  revealed  themselves,  the  attempt  was 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.         151 

made  by  Tuch  and  others  to  cover  them  by  the  sup- 
plementary hypothesis.    But  as  on  the  scheme  of  Graf 
and  Wellhausen,  which  has  sprung  into  sudden  popu- 
larity, the  foundation  has  been  converted   into  the 
summit  of  the  edifice,  that   form  of  the  hypothesis 
was  summarily  cast  aside,  and  the  critics  have  fallen 
back  under  cover  of  Hupfeld's  discovery  of  the  sec- 
ond Elohist.     The  hypothesis,  as  it  now  stands,  with 
three,  or  if  the  Deuteronomist  be  included,  four  dis- 
tinct writers,  and  a  final  Redactor  to  add,  retrench, 
retouch  and  combine  at  pleasure,  is  flexible  enough, 
one  would  think,  to  deal  with   anything  however  in- 
tractable.    He  who  accepts  the  divisive  hypothesis 
at  all  must  follow  very  much  in  the  line  of  those  who 
have  gone  before  him.   He  would  be  a  bold  adventurer 
indeed  who  would    attempt   an   independent    route, 
abandoning  all  the  defences  which  have  been  so  skil- 
fully planned,  and  the  combinations  which  have  been 
so  ingeniously  arranged.     The  agreement  of  critics  is 
simply  a  confession  that  the  hypothesis  can  no  longer 
be  materially  improved.     It  does  not  cease  on  that 
account,  however,  to  be  still  purely  a  hypothesis. 

2.  The  agreement  of  the  critics  is,  however,  far 
from  perfect.  The  first  five  chapters  of  Genesis  can 
only  be  divided  in  one  way,  if  the  change  of  divine 
names  is  made  the  basis;  consequently  there  has 
been  no  variance  there  of  any  account  except  as  to 
the  limiting  verse  between  the  first  and  second  sec- 
tions, 2:4;  and  that  constitutes  an  obstacle  which 
has  never  been  successfully  removed.  And  so  it  is 
elsewhere.  It  is  the  still  remaining  differences  which 
form  the  significant  feature  of  the  case.     In  very 


152  THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

many  portions  there  is  plain  sailing.  If  the  hypothe- 
sis is  accepted  and  its  principles  and  methods  adopted, 
there  is  but  one  line  of  separation  that  is  practicable. 
Over  these  easy  places  the  critics  march  in  unbroken 
column.  But  there  is  besides  not  a  little  rough  and 
uneven  ground,  where  they  break  their  ranks  and 
there  are  many  stragglers.  These  after  all  supply 
the  crucial  tests.  The  hypothesis  in  many  instances 
can  not  be  made  to  fit,  and  each  seeks  his  own 
method  of  bridging  the  chasm,  or  parrying  the  fatal 
thrust,  or  stretching  the  covering  which  in  spite  of 
every  effort  proves  too  narrow  for  him  to  wrap  him- 
self in.  Wellhausen  relieves  himself  by  the  expe- 
dient  of  successive  revisions  of  each  constituent 
document,  in  which  Dillmann '  sees  nothing  but  evi- 
dence of  his  embarrassment  in  his  being  obliged  to 
resort  to  it.  Meanwhile  Dillmann  himself  assumes 
such  a  subtle  weaving  together  of  documents  by  the 
Redactor  as  makes  the  entanglement  hopeless.  The 
critic  who  undertakes  to  deal  with  all  the  intricacies 
imposed  upon  him  by  the  hypothesis  consistently 
carried  through,  has  to  multiply  his  machinery  to 
such  an  extent,  before  it  will  work  smoothly,  that  it 
is  in  danger  of  breaking  down  by  its  own  weight. 
The  diversities  still  remaining  among  the  critics  suffi- 
ciently show  that  no  one  has  yet  succeeded  in  ad- 
justing the  hypothesis  to  the  entire  satisfaction  even 
of  his  own  associates. 

3.  To   disinterested   observers  the    style   of   argu- 
ment, by  which  the  hypothesis  is  defended,  seems  in 
large   part    inconclusive   and   vain.      This   has   been 
'  "  Die  Blicher  Exodus  und  Leviticus,"  Preface,  p.  vii. 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.         153 

sufficiently  illustrated  in  discussing  the  reasons  ad- 
duced to  establish  diversity  of  authorship  in  the  chap- 
ters before  us.  It  is  not  necessary  to  demolish  the 
walls  of  a  fortress  throughout  their  whole  extent  in 
order  to  effect  an  entrance.  If  the  hypothesis  can 
be  broken  through  at  important  salient  points,  this 
does  not,  to  say  the  least,  increase  our  confidence  in 
its  strength. 

4.  Nevertheless,  the  hypothesis  has  attractions  to 
account  for  its  present  popularity.  These  are  of 
different  sorts,  and  address  themselves  to  different 
classes  of  persons.  First,  they  who  discredit  the 
supernatural  have  of  course  a  strong  bias  in  favor  of 
this  hypothesis.  It  has  from  the  first  been  developed 
in  the  interest  of  unbelief,  and  it  affords  the  readiest 
mode  of  setting  aside  the  genuineness  and  authen- 
ticity of  the  Pentateuch.  But  it  is  also  captivating 
to  others  by  its  bold  dexterity,  its  plausible  explana- 
tion of  certain  curious  phenomena,  its  romantic 
bringing  to  light  of  long  existing  but  previously  un- 
suspected documents,  whose  mutual  relations  and 
tendencies  and  the  circumstances  of  their  origin 
allow  free  scope  to  the  imagination ;  it  opens  new 
realms  for  investigation  and  offers  chances  for  im- 
portant and  startling  discoveries.  It  thus  appeals 
strongly  to  those  of  an  original  and  speculative 
turn  of  mind.  It  naturally  kindles  a  like  fervor  of 
enthusiasm  to  that  which  was  awakened  by  the  search 
for  the  philosopher's  stone  and  the  elixir  of  life,  the 
northwest  passage,  the  missing  link  between  brute 
animals  and  man,  bridging  the  chasm  from  the  in- 
organic to  the  organic,  squaring  the  circle,  inventing 


154         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

a  perpetual  motion  and  other  chimerical  objects.  It 
is  a  superb  monument  of  the  learning  and  ingenuity 
of  those  who  devised  it  and  have  wrought  upon  it  thug 
far.  But  we  must  be  permitted  to  doubt  its  having 
solved  the  problem  of  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch, 
though  it  has  unquestionably  been  attended  with  im- 
mense incidental  advantages  in  the  thorough  investi- 
gation of  the  Pentateuch  to  which  it  has  led,  and  the 
light  thrown  upon  its  interpretation,  its  structure  and 
the  relations  of  its  several  parts.  But  it  would  be 
no  strange  thing  if  it  should  yet  be  sometime  desert- 
ed by  German  love  of  novelty.  And  among  the  odd 
possibilities  of  the  future,  who  knows  but  old  beliefs 
may  have  a  resurrection  even  there,  and  tenets  long 
forgotten  and  out  of  mind  may,  when  revived,  have 
all  the  charm  of  a  new  and  potent  attraction  ? 

The  critical  objections  to  the  unity  of  these  chap, 
ters  have  now  all  been  examined  and  found,  I  think 
I  may  say,  to  be  destitute  of  force.  We  are  entitled, 
therefore,  to  regard  them  as  being  what  on  their  face 
they  appear  to  be,  what  they  have  always  been  be- 
lieved to  be,  and  what  the  intimate  and  harmonious 
relation  of  all  their  parts  declares  them  to  be,  one 
continuous  and  connected  narrative.  There  is  no 
ground  whatever  for  the  assertion  of  the  critics,  that 
they  are  made  up  of  two  or  three  distinct  and  sepa- 
rable accounts  from  writers  whose  date  is  variously 
estimated  as  referable  to  any  time  from  the  age  of 
Joshua  to  that  of  Ezra,  and  which  were  combined 
into  their  present  form  by  a  Redactor  later  still.  The 
stand-point  of  the  critics  places  the  interpreter  under 
the  inevitable  temptation  to  exaggerate  every  slight 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12.  13.        155 

variation  in  the  terms  employed  into  a  real  variance, 
thus  producing  discrepancies  of  statement  and  differ 
ences  of  conception  where  none  whatever  exist. 
The  critical  division  of  these  chapters,  accordingly, 
is  invariably  associated  with  the  idea  that  each 
writer  represents  a  distinct  tradition  of  the  origin 
of  the  Passover,  differing  more  or  less  from  the 
other,  so  that  no  one  is  absolutely  reliable,  and  the 
truth  is  to  be  eliminated  by  comparison  and  by 
weighing  one  against  another.  And  by  not  a  few  the 
conclusion  is  drawn  that  no  confidence  can  be  reposed 
in  either  of  the  accounts,  and  the  critic  feels  at  liberty 
to  develop  his  own  views  of  the  origin  of  the  festi- 
val irrespective  of  any  of  the  conflicting  statements 
here  made.  But  in  fact  this  pretext  for  discrediting 
the  narrative  in  whole  or  in  part  does  not  exist.  In- 
stead of  conflicting  accounts  from  distinct  writers 
which  are  incapable  of  being  harmonized,  and  must 
therefore  be  carefully  sifted  or  given  up  entirely,  we 
have  one  self-consistent  record. 

It  only  remains  to  be  added  further  that  this  is  a 
credible  and  true  history  and  not,  as  many  of  the 
critics  affirm,  law  under  the  guise  of  history.  These 
chapters  contain  a  record  of  what  was  really  trans- 
acted at  the  exodus,  of  the  circumstances  under  which 
the  Passover  was  in  fact  instituted,  and  of  the  events 
which  were  afterward  commemorated  in  its  subse- 
quent annual  celebration — not  mere  deductions  from 
the  rite  itself  as  it  was  observed  in  later  times,  whether 
these  are  conceived  as  inferences  of  the  writer  himself 
or  as  embodied  in  popular  tales  which  had  grown  up 
in  connection  with  this  observance. 


156         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

In  evidence  that  this  is  the  record  of  actual  his- 
torical occurrences,  appeal  may  be  made,  1st,  To  the 
opening  statement,  12:1,  that  this  law  was  given  to 
Moses  and  Aaron  in  the  land  of  Egypt.  Hupfeld 
objects  to  this  as  suspicious  from  its  vague  generality 
and  because  it  is  superfluous  in  the  connection.  But 
it  is  precisely  in  accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch to  indicate  the  place  in  which  its  laws  were 
given,  e.g..  Lev.  7  :  38,  25  :  i,  26  :  46,  27  :  34,  Mount 
Sinai ;  Num.  35  :  i,  36 :  13,  the  plains  of  Moab.  And 
it  was  the  more  important  that  this  should  be  noted 
here,  because  it  was  an  exceptional  case,  all  the  rest 
of  the  ritual  laws  having  been  enacted  in  the  wilder- 
ness, and  because  the  significance  of  the  ordinance 
rested  largely  on  the  time,  place  and  circumstances 
of  its  original  celebration.  And  that  it  must  really 
have  been  instituted  in  Egypt,  as  is  here  stated,  ap- 
pears from  the  fact  that  it  was  observed  in  the  first 
instance  as  a  preservative  against  the  plague  of  the 
first-born,  as  well  as  from  the  peculiar  mode  of  its 
observance  on  that  occasion.  The  whole  ceremonial 
savors  of  a  time  when  there  was  as  yet  no  public 
sanctuary,  no  priesthood,  no  common  altar.  The 
animal  was  slain  at  home  by  the  head  of  each  family, 
and  its  blood  sprinkled  on  the  door-posts  of  the 
house.^  These  particulars  reappear  nowhere  else  in 
law  or  usage ;  and  the  last  mentioned  was  performed 

'  Graf  ("  GeschichtHche  Biicher,"  pp.  34,  35)  absurdly  enough  seeks 
to  explain  this  as  a  usage  which  grew  up  in  the  Babylonish  exile, 
when  the  people  were  sundered  from  the  place  of  the  sanctuary. 
But  it  would  be  a  gross  violation  of  the  fundamental  principle  of 
the  Priest  Code,  of  which  the  exile  is  made  the  birth-place. 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13.         157 

explicitly  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  the  household 
by  the  expiatory  virtue  of  the  slain  lamb  from  the 
apprehended  visit  of  the  angel  of  death.  The  as- 
sumption that  this  describes  the  usage  of  a  later 
time  and  transfers  it  back  to  the  age  of  Moses  and 
the  scene  of  the  exodus  is  altogether  gratuitous,  hav- 
ing no  basis  in  any  known  fact.  It  is  at  variance 
not  only  with  the  traditional  belief  and  practice  of 
the  Jews,  but  with  all  the  later  legislation  on  the 
subject,  and  it  finds  no  support  whatever  in  the  regu- 
lations here  given  which  direct  the  perpetuation  of 
the  ordinance,  but  not  necessarily  those  particulars 
which  for  special  reasons  belonged  only  to  its  first 
observance. 

2.  No  good  reason  can  be  given  why  the  Passover 
alone  of  the  three  annual  feasts  should  have  been 
thus  singled  out  and  represented  to  have  been  the 
only  one  instituted  in  Egypt,  unless  this  was  really 
the  case.  In  all  subsequent  laws  the  three  feasts  are 
mentioned  together  as  of  common  obligation.  In 
the  later  history  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  as  a  feast  of 
special  gladness  and  of  universal  interest  assumed 
superior  prominence,  and  is  more  frequently  spoken 
of.  This  distinction  accorded  to  the  Passover  can 
only  be  due  to  the  historical  reason  here  assigned. 

3.  All  the  subsequent  laws  relating  to  the  feasts 
directly  connect  the  Passover  and  the  feast  of  Un- 
leavened Bread  with  the  exodus.  Thus,  Ex.  23  :  15, 
"  Thou  shalt  eat  unleavened  bread,  as  I  commanded 
thee,  in  the  time  appointed  of  the  month  Abib  ;  for 
in  it  thou  camest  out  from  Egypt."  So  in  almost 
identical  words  Ex.  34  :  18.     Both  these  passages  are 


158         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12.  13. 

expressly  said  to  have  been  written  by  Moses,  24  :  4, 
34  :  27  ;  and  the  reason  which  they  give  for  observing 
the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  at  the  time  appointed 
is  that  in  it  they  came  out  of  Egypt ;  and  further, 
they  explicitly  refer  to  the  command  given  for  its 
observance  in  Ex.,  ch.  12,  13.  George  claims  that  the 
reference  is  to  Deuteronomy ;  others  to  some  law 
now  unknown,  or  that  the  words  ''  as  I  commanded 
thee  "  are  an  interpolation.  But  the  only  reason  for 
suspecting  an  interpolation  is  that  the  critic  wishes 
to  get  rid  in  this  summary  manner  of  an  unwelcome 
part  of  the  text.  As  the  book  of  Exodus  now  stands, 
the  reference  to  ch.  12,  13  is  obvious.  The  Redactor, 
if  there  was  one,  certainly  intended  it  to  be  so  under- 
stood ;  the  verbal  allusion  also  is  plain.  This  refer- 
ence consequently  must  be  admitted,  unless  some 
good  reason  can  be  given  to  the  contrary  and  for  sus- 
pecting either  the  honesty  or  the  competency  of  the 
Redactor  or  both.  Lev.  23  though  it  makes  no 
direct  allusion  to  this  law,  plainly  presupposes  it. 
A  full  account  is  here  given  of  the  ceremonies  to  be 
observed  at  the  feasts  which  had  not  been  previously 
described.  But  no  description  is  given  of  the  mode 
of  observing  the  Passover  nor  of  the  peculiar  services 
of  the  day  of  Atonement.  The  latter  are  omitted, 
because  they  had  been  fully  set  forth  in  Lev.  16 ;  the 
ritual  of  the  former  is  nowhere  given  except  in  Ex. 
12,  13.  Upon  the  first  anniversary  of  their  leaving 
Egypt  the  people  were  directed.  Num.  9  :  i  ff.,  to 
keep  the  Passover  in  its  appointed  season  *'  according 
to  all  the  rites  of  it  and  according  to  all  the  cere- 
monies of  it";   which   implies   that   these   rites  had 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH,  12,  13.        159 

been  before  ordained.  But  there  is  no  record  of  the 
fact  except  in  these  chapters,  to  which  there  are  be- 
sides clear  verbal  references,  vs.  ii,  12,  14.  Deut. 
16  :  1-8  also  connects  the  Passover  with  the  exodus, 
and  contains  numerous  verbal  allusions  to  Ex.  12,  13 ; 
and  the  Deuteronomic  law  is  expressly  said  to  have 
been  written  by  Moses,  Deut.  31:9,  24.  All  the 
later  laws  are  thus  built  upon  the  law  in  Ex.  12,  13^ 
and  presuppose  it ;  the  connection  of  the  Passover 
with  the  exodus  is  explicitly  declared,  and  that  in  laws 
which  are  distinctly  said  to  have  been  written  by 
Moses  himself.  Even  on  the  principles  of  the  divisive 
critics  themselves  this  unanimous  concurrence  of  all 
the  sources  of  tradition  and  all  the  hypothetical 
writers  and  the  Redactor  as  well  in  one  explicit  tes- 
timony must  be  accepted  as  evidence  of  truth,  if  any- 
thing whatever  from  the  Mosaic  age  can  be  relied 

upon. 

To  this  may  be  added  the  fact  already  shown  in  a 
former  lecture  that  the  great  majority  of  the  most 
eminent  critics,  however  they  differed  in  other  re- 
spects, have  seen  no  difficulty  in  maintaining  the 
Mosaic  or  even  pre-Mosaic  origin  of  the  feasts  upon 
grounds  altogether  independent  of  the  truth  of  the 
historical  records. 

It  is  objected,  I,  that  the  formal  declaration,  12  :  2, 
that  the  month  of  the  exodus  was  to  be  reckoned 
the  first  month  of  the  year,  is  evidently  post-exilic,  as 
it  is  based  upon  the  change  of  the  calendar  then 
made.  This  has  been  maintained  on  directly  opposite 
grounds.     George  '  affirms  that  the  Jewish  year  orig- 

1  "  Die  alteren  Jiidischen  Feste,"  p.  91. 


l6o        THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH,  12,  Id. 

inally  began  in  the  spring  ;  but  when  the  double  mode 
of  reckoning  was  introduced  after  the  exile  and  the 
civil  year  began  in  the  autumn,  this  verse  was  inserted 
to  indicate  that  the  ecclesiastical  year  differed  from 
that  in  common  use  in  holding  fast  to  the  ancient 
order.  Wellhausen  on  the  contrary  asserts  that  prior 
to  the  exile  the  Jewish  year  began  in  the  autumn, 
but  that  subsequently  the  spring  era  represented  in 
this  passage  was  adopted  from  the  Babylonians.  In 
fact  neither  is  correct ;  both  modes  of  reckoning 
were  in  use  long  prior  to  the  exile,  as  is  evinced  by 
numerous  passages.^ 

2.  It  is  also  objected  that  the  feast  of  Unleavened 
Bread  was  not  to  be  observed  until  they  reached  Ca- 
naan, 13:5,  and  that  the  terms  of  the  law  imply 
residence  there,  12:19,  25  ff.,  48,49.  But  the  very 
purpose  for  which  they  were  leaving  Egypt,  was  to 
take  possession  of  Canaan,  which  had  been  promised 
them  as  their  inheritance,  and  where  they  expected 
to  be  settled  without  delay.  The  laws  are,  therefore, 
framed  with  reference  to  this  anticipated  condition. 

3.  A  further  objection  is  drawn  from  the  occur- 
rence of  words  which  are  alleged  to  indicate  a  later 
^ge,  tD'itJStD  (judgments),  Ex.  12:12,  and  ^^^  in  the 
sense  of  ''self-same,"  12:17,  41,  51,  which  reappear 
in  Ezekicl,  and  "Ti^lJ^n'  "^ed  13:  12,  of  setting  apart 
the  first-born  to  Jehovah,  but  which  is  the  technical 

'  The  year  beginning  in  the  spring,  when  nature  buds  out  anew 
and  new  enterprises  can  be  undertaken,  2  Sam.  ii:i;  i  Kin. 
20 :  22,  26  ;  Jer.  36  :  22.  The  year  beginning  in  the  fall,  when  the 
fruits  of  the  previous  year  have  been  gathered  in,  and  it  is  time  to 
plough  and  sow  for  a  new  harvest,  Ex.  23  :  16,  34  :  22  ;  Lev.  25  : 9. 
10,  22  ;  2  Kin.  22  :  3,  comp.  23  :  23  ;  Isa.  37  :  30. 


THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  13,  13.         i6l 

term  in  common  use  in  the  period  of  the  later  kings 
for  ** passing  through"  the  fire  to  Moloch,  2  Kin. 
i6:  3,  etc.  But  the  first  two  words  though  found  in 
Ezekiel  are  evidently  adopted  by  him  not  from  the 
current  usage  of  his  time,  of  which  there  is  no  evi- 
dence, but  from  the  familiar  language  of  the  ancient 
law ;  and  the  third  word  is  not  borrowed  from  the 
Moloch  abomination,  but  from  the  dialect  of  com- 
mon life,  as  when  an  inheritance  is  "  made  to  pass," 
Num.  27 : 7,  8,  to  him  who  receives  it,  or  the  king- 
dom was  translated  or  "  made  to  pass "  from  the 
house  of  Saul  to  that  of  David,  2  Sam.  3  :  10.  So 
the  first-born  were  "made  to  pass  "  into  the  exclu- 
sive ownership  of  Jehovah. 

4.  Wellhausen  ^  likewise  objects  to  "  the  preaching 
tone  of  13  : 3-16,  which  is  quite  foreign  to  the  older" 
writers,  and  to  "  the  stage  of  religiosity,  which  comes 
out  particularly  in  vs.  9,  10,  upon  which  authors  who 
tell  of  the  patriarchs  erecting  stones  and  altars,  plant- 
ing sacred  trees  and  digging  wells,  do  not  stand.' 
But  now,  precisely,  when  this  ordinance  was  appoint- 
ed to  perpetuate  the  remembrance  of  God's  most 
signal  benefits,  was  the  time  to  insist  upon  their  keep- 
ing in  ever-present  memory  themselves,  and  inculcat- 
ing upon  their  children  the  lessons  of  the  hour,  comp. 
also  Gen.  18:  19;  Ex.  10:2.  The  pharisaic  literalism 
foisted  upon  13  19  is  as  foreign  from  its  genuine  sense 
as  the  fetichism  which  by  an  utter  perversion  he 
would  impute  to  the  Patriarchs. 

5.  But  the  final  and  most  serious  objection  is,  this 
can  not  be  true  history,  for  it  is  too  closely  entwined 

*  "  Jahrbiicher  fUr  Deutsche  Theologie,"  XXI.,  p.  544. 
II 


l62         THE  UNITY  OF  EXODUS,  CH.  12,  13. 

with  the  miraculous  to  be  separated.  This  after  all 
is  the  secret  of  the  settled  determination  of  the  critics 
to  rid  themselves  of  these  chapters.  A  pestilence 
sweeping  off  vast  numbers  of  the  Egyptians  might 
be  admitted :  and  Israel  might  have  escaped  its  rav- 
ages, for  they  dwelt  in  a  district  by  themselves.  But 
to  those  whose  prime  maxim  is  that  the  supernatural 
must  necessarily  be  a  myth,  a  pestilence  which  singled 
out  the  first-born  in  every  house,  is  utterly  inadmissi- 
ble, though  both  the  Passover  and  the  hallowing  of 
the  first-born,  13:15,  Num.  3  :  13,  8  :  17,  combine  to 
declare  it  true.  To  those  who  do  not  share  these 
principles  the  institution  of  the  Passover  at  the  exo- 
dus is  no  more  mythical  than  the  American  Revolu- 
tion and  Declaration  of  Independence  are  to  be  ac- 
counted myths  based  on  the  annual  observance  of  the 
fourth  of  July. 


V. 


THE  FEAST  LAWS  AND  THE 
PASSOVER. 


/  1         /  /~  ■'' 


/s 


..^.^^^.^..^.^^^X^    i>-»^     ---  /^^  -  rj^  /  r  ^  ^ 


V. 

THE   FEAST   LAWS  AND  THE   PASSOVER. 

THE  unity  and  historical  character  of  Ex.  12,  13 
having  been  estabHshed,  we  have  gained  a  van- 
tage ground  for  the  study  of  the  other  laws  relating 
to  the  Passover.  The  various  laws  upon  this  subject, 
we  are  told,  represent  different  periods ;  and  by  their 
aid  it  is  easy  to  trace  the  history  and  development  of 
this  festival,  from  its  simplest  beginnings,  through 
the  various  stages  of  its  progress  to  its  final  form. 

It  is  generally  agreed  among  the  critics  that  there 
are  three  principal  strata  in  the  legislation,  which  are 
referred  respectively  to  the  Jehovist,  Elohist  and 
Deuteronomist.  To  the  Jehovist  are  assigned  the 
laws  in  Ex.  23  and  34  which  are  supposed  to  be 
older  codes  embodied  by  him  in  his  work,  the  former 
being  a  part  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  Ex.  21-23, 
and  the  latter  being  called,  for  a  reason  which  we  shall 
learn  hereafter,  the  law  of  the  two  tables.  Commonly 
also,  as  we  have  seen  already,  certain  legal  sections 
of  ch.  12,  13  are  ascribed  to  the  Jehovist,  but  Well- 
hausen  insists  that  these  do  not  properly  belong  to  his 
work,  but  are  later  additions  to  it.  To  the  Elohist  are 
attributed  the  rest  of  Ex.  12,  13,  and  the  laws  in  Lev. 
23,  Num.  9:1-14,  Num.  28,  29.      George  claims  for 

(165) 


l66  THE  FEAST  LA  IVS 

Deuteronomy  priority  to  all  the  other  laws.  Dillmann 
places  it  last  of  all.  Wellhausen  assigns  it  a  central 
position,  between  the  Jehovist  legislation  and  that  of 
the  Elonist.  In  his  view  the  Jehovist  belongs  to  the 
period  preceding  the  overthrow  of  the  kingdom  of 
the  ten  tribes;  Deuteronomy  to  the  reign  of  Josiah ; 
the  Elohist  after  the  Babylonish  exile.  Critics  are 
now,  however,  generally  united  in  the  opinion  that 
Ex.  23  and  34  contain  the  oldest  form  of  the  feast 
laws  and  of  the  cultus  generally.  Wellhausen  ^  says : 
**  In  the  old  days  the  public  worship  of  the  nation 
consisted  essentially  in  the  celebration  of  the  yearly 
feasts,  ....  and  accordingly  the  laws  of  worship  are 
confined  to  this  one  point  in  the  Jehovist  and  even 
in  Deuteronomy." 

The  language  of  the  two  laws  above  referred  to  is 
nearly  identical,  with  some  remarkable  variations,  and 
the  critics  have  been  greatly  puzzled  to  make  out  the 
relation  in  which  they  stand  to  each  other  and  why 
both  forms  have  been  preserved.  George^  thinks  that 
ch.  34  was  framed  upon  the  basis  of  ch.  23,  the  author 
only  explaining  or  completing  what  was  difficult  or 
obscure.  Kuenen '  says  very  much  to  the  same  effect : 
"The  author  of  Exodus  34  borrows  from  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant  and  from  a  few  other  laws  the  rules 
which  seem  to  him  to  be  the  most  important,  and 
makes  of  them  a  whole  after  his  own  fashion."  Graf, 
on  the  other  hand,  thinks  that  ch.  23  was  abbreviated 
from  ch.  34,  which  previously  existed   in   a  separate 

'  "  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  Vol.  XVIII.,  Art.  Pentateuch,  p.  511 
*  "Die  alteren  Jiidischen  Feste,"  p.  no. 
2 "  The  Religion  of  Israel,"  Vol.  II.,  p.  S. 


AND  THE  PASSOVER.  167 

state.  Reuss'  remarks  on  this  subject:  ''It  is  very 
difficult  to  say  in  what  relation  the  so-called  second 
decalogue  (Ex.  34 :  1 1  ff.)  stands  to  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant.  It  is  not  an  integral  part  of  it.  One  could 
not  understand  why  it  was  sundered  from  the  rest 
and  contained  repetitions.  But  the  latter  particularly 
seem  to  bring  them  near  together  in  point  of  time." 
He  accordingly  cuts  the  knot  by  assuming  that  the 
feast  laws  were  originally  no  part  of  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant;  this  contained  almost  nothing  relating  to 
worship,  and  the  gap  was  filled  in  a  supplementary 
manner  by  an  insertion  from  ch.  34.  Wellhausen' 
again  maintains  that  the  feast  laws  in  ch.  23  were 
neither  borrowed  from  ch.  34,  nor  those  in  ch.  34 
from  ch.  23,  but  that  they  were  originally  quite  inde- 
pendent of  each  other,  only  they  have  been  mutually 
interpolated,  34:18  having  been  taken  from  23:15, 
and  23  :  17-19  transferred  from  ch.  34.  Hitzig,' 
whom  Delitzsch*  somewhat  sharply  describes  as  "hav- 
ing passed  from  Romish  superstition  to  Protestant 
unbelief,"  made  the  astounding  discovery,  following' 
out  a  suggestion  of  Goethe's,  that  this  was  another 
version  of  the  ten  commandments.  Wellhausen  ^  of 
course  indorses  this  discovery ;  only  in  his  free  appli- 
cation of  the  critical  knife,  which  never  fails  him  in 
an  emergency,  it  is  surprising  that  he  did  not  avail 
himself  of  his  opportunity  and  strike  out  from  this 

^  "Geschichte  d.  heiligen  Schriften  alten  Bundes,"  I.,  p.  232. 

2  **  Geschichte,"  I.,  p.  89. 

3  "  Ostern  und  Pfingsten,"  1838,  p.  42. 
Guericke's  "Zeitschrift,"  for  1840,  No.  2,  p.  116. 

**  Jahrbucher  fiir  Deutsche  Theologie,"  XXI.,  p.  554, 


l68  THE  FEAST  LA  WS 

new-fangled  decalogue  the  unwelcome  words,  "  Thou 
shalt  make  thee  no  molten  gods/'  which  have  no 
counterpart  in  ch.  23,  but  which,  corroborated  by  the 
second  commandment  in  Ex.  20  and  Deut.  5,  even 
apart  from  the  story  of  the  golden  calf,  confront  the 
critics  with  multiplied  evidence  that  Moses  really  did 
forbid  image-worship.  And  then  the  frequent  lapses 
of  Israel  into  idolatry  and  the  worship  established  by 
Jeroboam  in  the  ten  tribes  afford  glaring  proofs  of 
the  falsity  of  the  critical  dictum  that  the  open  and 
continued  disregard  of  a  statute  warrants  the  infer- 
ence of  its  non-existence. 

According  to  Wellhausen  there  are  three  quite  in- 
dependent and  mutually  contradictory  traditions  of 
the  transactions  at  Sinai.  One  of  these  knows  noth- 
ing of  any  ten  commandments  or  tables  of  stone,  but 
only  of  a  series  of  laws  or  judgments,  ch.  21-23.  which 
Moses  is  directed  to  write.  According  to  the  second, 
Jehovah  uttered  ten  commandments,  ch.  20,  in  awful 
majesty  in  the  audience  of  the  whole  people,  and  gave 
to  Moses  after  he  had  been  forty  days  in  the  mount  two 
tables  of  stone  upon  which  they  had  been  written  by 
God's  own  finger,  but  which  Moses  broke  in  descend- 
ing the  mountain.  According  to  the  third,  Jehovah 
uttered  the  ten  commandments  in  ch.  34,'  which  are, 

'  Wellhausen  accordingly  ("  Geschichte  Israels,"  p.  85  :  Prolego- 
mena (Eng.  Trans.),  p.  83,  and  passini)  calls  Ex.  34  :  14-26  "das 
Zweitafelgesetz,"  the  law  of  the  two  tables,  claiming  that  this  is  one 
version  of  the  law  written  on  tables  of  stone.  Dr.  Delitzsch  calls 
it  by  a  slight  modification  "das  Zweittafelgesetz,"  the  law  of  the 
second  tables,  meaning  the  compendious  law  issued  in  connection 
with  the  second  giving  of  the  decalogue  to  Moses  as  an  abridgment 
of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  ch.  21-23,  which  was  issued  in  conneo 
tion  with  the  first  proclamation  of  the  ten  commandments. 


AND  THE  PASSOVER.  169 

however,  entirely  different  from  those  of  ch.  20,  and 
were  spoken  not  to  the  people,  but  to  Moses,  who 
himself  wrote  them  upon  two  tables  of  stone  which 
he  had  prepared  and  taken  with  him  for  the  purpose, 
and  which  there  is  no  record  of  his  having  broken. 
All  this  is  made  out  in  the  usual  way  in  which  the 
critics  accomplish  their  marvellous  feats,  viz.,  by  split- 
ting up  the  narrative  and  ejecting  as  an  interpolation 
whatever  can  not  be  made  to  bend  to  their  purpose. 

Under  such  guidance  we  may  well  despair  of  know- 
ing anything  of  the  Mosaic  period  or  indeed  of  any 
other.  If  anything  can  be  established  by  historical 
and  monumental  evidence,  the  law  surely  can  be 
which  was  graven  on  stones  that  were  still  extant  in 
the  time  of  Solomon,  and  are  even  referred  to  by 
Jeremiah,  though  destined  shortly  to  be  superseded. 
The  allegation  that  the  laws  of  ch.  34  are  the  ten 
commandments,  and  that  they  were  written  by  Moses 
on  tables  of  stone,  confounds  what  Moses  is  directed 
to  write,  ver.  27,  with  what  was  written  on  the  tables, 
ver.  28,  not  by  Moses,  but  by  the  LORD,  as  is  plain 
from  the  explicit  statement  of  ver.  i.  In  the  clause,' 
"  he  did  neither  eat  bread  nor  drink  water,"  the  sub- 
ject is  plainly  Moses.  But  in  the  following  clause, 
"  and  he  wrote  upon  the  tables  the  words  of  the  cov- 
enant, the  ten  commandments,"  the  subject  is  as 
plainly  the  LORD,  who  had  promised,  "  I  will  write 
upon  the  tables  the  words  that  were  in  the  first  tables 
which  thou  brakest."  The  change  of  subject  in  suc- 
cessive clauses,  where  the  meaning  is  sufficiently 
obvious,  is  too  familiar  to  create  the  slightest  trouble. 
As  Ranke  shows,  the  denial  of  it  leads  to  the  mo?* 


1 70  THE  FEAST  LA  WS 

glaring  incongruities,  as  that  Melchizedek  paid  titheg 
to  Abraham,  Gen.  14:  19,  20,  that  Abraham's  servant 
hospitably  entertained  Laban,  24:32,  and  that  Moses 
claims  the  prerogatives  of  the  Almighty  God,  Ex. 
34:9,  10. 

The  relation  between  ch.  23  and  34,  in  which 
the  critics  find  so  much  mystery  and  perplexity,  is  as 
plain  as  a  simple,  straightforward  narrative  can  make 
it.  The  former  is  a  part  of  the  Book  of  the  Cove- 
nant, to  which  the  people  formally  pledged  obedience 
in  that  solemn  transaction  by  which  they  became  the 
Lord's  people  and  he  became  their  God.  This  cov- 
enant was  ruptured  by  the  sin  of  the  golden  calf,  and 
the  tables  of  the  law  were  broken.  And  when  upon 
Moses*  fervent  intercession  it  was  again  renewed,  the 
ten  commandments  were  once  more  written  by  the 
Lord  upon  tables  of  stone,  and  that  portion  of  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant  which  concerned  the  people's 
duties  toward  God,  was  rewritten  by  Moses. 

From  the  brevity  of  the  feast  laws  in  these  chap- 
ters, and  the  general  terms  in  which  they  are  couched, 
it  is  claimed  that  they  must  be  the  original  regula- 
tions on  the  subject ;  and  that  other  laws,  which  con- 
tain more  minute  and  extended  regulations,  must  be- 
long to  a  later  period  when  these  institutions  had 
been  developed  beyond  the  primitive  simplicity  in 
which  we  here  find  them.  But  that  this  can  not  be 
the  case  is  apparent  upon  a  simple  inspection.  For, 
I.  They  explicitly  refer  to  an  antecedent  law,  Thou 
shalt  eat  unleavened  bread  seven  days,  as  I  commanded 
thee.  2.  This  reference  to  a  prior  law  is  made  in  con- 
nection with  one  feast  only,  that  of  Unleavened  Bread, 


AND  THE  PASSO  VER, 


171 


which  seems  to  intimate  that  while  directions  had 
been  given  in  respect  to  it,  none  had  yet  been  given 
respecting  the  two  remaining  feasts.  3.  What  is  said 
of  the  other  two  feasts  is  so  meagre  that  no  one  could 
gather  from  it  anything  as  to  their  nature  or  how 
they  were  to  be  observed.  There  is  also  some  varia- 
tion in  the  terms  applied  to  them ;  and  the  expres- 
sions, "  feast  of  harvest,"  "  feast  of  ingathering,"  seem 
to  be  descriptive  epithets  derived  from  the  occasion 
of  their  observance  rather  than  proper  names  of  the 
feasts  themselves.  This  is  just  such  a  general  indefinite 
sort  of  reference  as  might  be  expected  in  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  covenant,  leaving  all  further  details 
to  be  supplied  by  subsequent  legislation.  George 
maintains  that  the  previous  law  referred  to  is  that  in 
Deuteronomy ;  but  Wellhausen  confesses  that  it  is 
plainly  Ex.  13,  though  he  seeks  to  escape  the  conse- 
quence of  his  admission  by  the  groundless  assertion 
that  the  words  "  as  I  commanded  thee  "  are  an  interpo- 
lation. 

The  next  law  in  order  is  Lev.  23.  This,  we  are 
told,  must  belong  to  a  much  later  period  than  the 
preceding;  for  instead  of  only  three  feasts  there  are 
now  five,  the  feast  of  Trumpets  and  the  day  of  Atone- 
ment having  meanwhile  been  added ;  and  further, 
there  are  ceremonies  connected  with  each,  of  which  no 
mention  was  made  before.  But  there  are  no  more 
feasts  properly  speaking,  in  this  chapter  than  the 
three  previously  spoken  of.  The  only  appearance  of 
an  increase  in  the  number  in  the  ordinary  English 
version  arises  from  the  confusion  of  two  quite  dis- 
tinct   words,   which    are    indiscriminately    rendered 


172 


THE  FEAST  LA  WS 


feasts.  The  first  of  these  Is  the  same  that  is  correctl> 
translated  "seasons,"  Gen.  i :  14;  it  properly  denotes 
fixed  or  stated  periods.  The  chapter  which  we  are 
now  considering  professes  to  enumerate  not  *'  the 
feasts  "  simply,  but  all  the  stated  periods  in  the  year 
with  which  holy  convocations  were  connected.  It 
accordingly  begins  with  the  weekly  Sabbath,  and  then 
proceeds  with  the  annually  recurring  stated  times  at 
which  holy  convocations  were  prescribed,  whether 
pilgrimages  were  to  be  made,  as  at  the  three  great 
festivals,  or  not.  Upon  these  several  occasions  men- 
tion is  made  of  the  fact  that  an  offering  made  by  fire 
unto  the  LORD  was  required  ;  but  no  specifications 
are  given  as  to  the  number  or  character  of  these  offer- 
ings. In  Num.  28  this  lack  is  supplied,  and  a  detailed 
account  given  of  the  sacrifices  to  be  offered  every  day, 
every  Sabbath,  and  upon  every  occasion  of  special 
solemnity  throughout  the  year.  Here  the  critics 
themselves  confess  that  these  chapters  are  mutually 
supplementary ;  that  they  do  not  represent  different 
stages  in  the  development  of  the  feasts,  but  the  very 
same ;  and  that  the  details  respecting  the  sacrifices 
were  purposely  omitted  in  the  one  chapter  with  the 
view  of  bringing  them  together  as  we  find  them  in 
the  other.  This  is  an  admission  that  different  de- 
grees of  fulness  in  the  contents  of  the  feast  laws  may 
be  due  to  other  causes  than  the  lapse  of  time  and  the 
development  of  these  ordinances  in  the  interval.  It 
may  result  from  the  purpose  of  the  writer,  the  or- 
dinance remaining  unchanged.  This  is  yielding  the 
entire  principle,  which  satisfactorily  accounts  for  all 
the  differences  in  the  Pentateuchal  laws  on  this  sub- 


AND  THE  PASSOVER,  173 

ject  without   the   need  of   assuming  any  protracted 
periods  of  growth  between  them. 

The  fact  is  that  the  feast  laws,  instead  of  being 
scattered  through  the  Pentateuch  at  random,  as  a 
superficial  observer  might  imagine,  or  being  isolated 
fragments  of  codes  distinct  in  authorship  and  widely 
separated  in  point  of  time,  are  not  only  harmonious, 
but  are  integral  parts  of  a  well-contrived  scheme : 
they  have  all  been  prepared  with  evident  reference 
to  one  another  and  each  is  adjusted  to  its  proper 
place  in  this  comprehensive  body  of  legislation ;  so 
that  they  stand  in  most  intimate  mutual  relation,  and 
at  the  same  time  in  close  and  obvious  relation  to  the 
context  in  which  they  are  found,  and  to  that  part  of 
the  system  of  legislation  which  they  respectively  oc- 
cupy. In  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  drawn  up  as  the 
preliminary  basis  of  the  union  to  be  cemented  be- 
tween Jehovah  and  Israel,  it  would  have  been  clearly 
out  of  place  to  introduce  in  detail  the  whole  cere- 
monial of  worship,  which  was  subsequently  estab- 
lished as  the  outgrowth  and  proper  expression  of 
this  union.  Accordingly  it  comprises  first  and  mainly 
regulations  regarding  the  relation  of  man  to  man, 
conceived  in  the  spirit  of  the  religion  of  Jehovah, 
and  then  in  the  briefest  possible  compass  directions 
respecting  firstlings  and  first-fruits,  the  Sabbath  and 
the  annual  feasts,  that  is  to  say,  oblations  and  sacred 
times,  as  the  culminations  of  that  outward  and  formal 
service  in  which  the  people's  homage  toward  God  was 
to  manifest  itself.  Any  fuller  or  more  elaborate  de- 
scription even  of  these  particulars  would  not  have 
been  appropriate  or  suitable  here,  where  only  an  out- 
line programme,  so  to  speak,  was  called  for. 


174 


THE  FEAST  LA  WS 


From  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  everything  leads 
by  regular  and  easy  steps  to  the  next  feast  law  in 
Lev.  23/  The  ratification  of  the  covenant  brought 
with  it  as  its  immediate  consequence  that  Jehovah 
condescended  to  dwell  in  the  midst  of  his  people. 
All  the  rest  of  Exodus  is  occupied  with  divine  direc- 
tions for  the  preparation  of  the  Sacred  Tabernacle, 
its  actual  construction  and  its  erection.  Then  follow 
in  Lev.  1-7  the  various  sacrifices  and  offerings  which 
the  people  might  bring  to  the  Tabernacle ;  then 
ch.  8-10,  the  setting  apart  of  a  priesthood  to  offer 
these  sacrifices.  Ch.  11-16  declare  what  was  requi- 
site in  the  people  that  Jehovah  might  continue  to 
dwell  among  them  and  they  be  suffered  to  bring 
their  gifts  to  his  Tabernacle,  the  laws  of  ceremonial 
purity  which  they  must  observe,  together  with  the 
rites  of  cleansing  in  case  of  defilement,  and  finally 
the  services  of  the  annual  day  of  Atonement.  Then 
follow  in  the  remainder  of  the  book  of  Leviticus  what 
have  the  appearance  of  miscellaneous  prescriptions, 
but  in  reality  are  not  so,  since  they  are  bound  together 
by  one  common  thought.  They  continue  to  urge  in 
various  lines  of  the  ritual,  of  life  and  manners  the 
obligations  upon  the  people  and  the  priests,  which 
result  from  Jehovah's  having  fixed  his  habitation  in 
the  midst  of  them.  A  considerable  section  in  this 
part  of  the  book  is  by  the  critics  commonly  called 
the  holiness-laws,  since  they  are  simply  developments 
of  the  demand,  Lev.  19  :  2,  "Ye  shall  be  holy;  for  I 
the  Lord  your  God  am  holy."  Upon  this  follow  the 
laws  respecting  the  sacred  times  when  this  holy 
'See  Ranke,  "  Untersuchungen,"  II.,  pp.  103  ff. 


AND  THE  PASSOVER,  I75 

people  are  to  present  themselves  before  God  in  holy 
convocations.  The  feast  laws  thus  stand  at  the  end 
of  the  Levitical  legislation,  as  they  did  at  the  end  of 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  the  crown,  the  culmina- 
tion of  the  whole,  and  are  immediately  followed, 
ch.  26,  by  the  recital  of  the  blessings  to  be  shared  by 
the  obedient  and  the  curses  that  shall  be  inflicted 
upon  the  disobedient. 

These  laws,  accordingly,  are  in  their  proper  place, 
as  the  fit  sequel  to  the  series  of  connected  statutes 
thus  hastily  reviewed.    And  they  are  further  precisely 
adapted  to  their  place.    Some  of  these  sacred  seasons 
had  been  with  sufficient  fulness  described  before,  as 
the  occasion  required  their  introduction.    The  weekly 
Sabbath  was  set  apart  at  the  creation  and  its  remem- 
brance was  freshly  enjoined  in  the  ten  commandments 
proclaimed  from  the  summit  of  Sinai.    The  Passover 
was  instituted  at  the  exodus.  The  day  of  Atonement, 
appointed  when  Nadab  and  Abihu  met  their  death 
for   unwarranted    intrusion    into   the   holy   place,   is 
added  to  and  completes  the  laws  of  cleansing.     The 
Sabbath,  the  Passover  and  the  day  of  Atonement  can 
hence  be  dismissed  with  a  very  few  words.    They  are 
inserted  for  completeness  in  the  list  of  times  for  which 
holy  convocations  are  appointed  ;  but  the  bulk  of  the 
chapter  is  occupied  with  ceremonial  services  not  pre- 
viously described,  and  especially  those  belonging  to 
the  two  feasts  which  were  simply  mentioned  in  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  but  no  particulars  given  re- 
specting them.     Thus  both  by  what  it  contains  and 
by  what  it  omits,  this  chapter  shows  itself  to  be  an 
integral  part  of  a  connected  system  of  legislation, 


1 76  THE  FEAST  LA  WS 

not  itself  a  complete,  self-contained  and  separate  la^^ 
for  the  regulation  of  the  feasts. 

In  regard  to  the  theorizing  of  the  critics  respect- 
ing the  section  of  Leviticus  in  which  this  chapter  is 
found,  I  avail  myself  of  the  following  terse  and  ac- 
curate statement  by  Dr.  Dillmann  :^  *'  While  Ewald, 
Noldeke  and  Schrader  explain  the  peculiar  style  of 
ch.  18-20  from  the  use  of  an  older  code  by  the  Elo- 
hist,  and  Knobel  derives  ch.  17-20,  parts  of  ch.  23,  24 
and  25,  and  ch.  26  from  his  Book  of  Wars,  Graf  in  ch. 
18-23,  25,  26,  and  Kayser  in  ch.  17-26  sought  to 
point  out  a  collection  of  laws  composed  by  Ezekiel, 
and  subsequently  interspersed  with  passages  of  the 
Elohist,  in  opposition  to  whom  Noldeke,  Kloster- 
mann  and  Kuenen  proved  the  impossibility  of  its 
composition  by  Ezekiel ;  whereupon  Kuenen  and 
Wellhausen  declared  it  to  be  a  collection  formed  after 
Ezekiel,  and  subsequently  revised  in  the  spirit  of  the 
Priest  Code,  which  then  Smend  gives  forth  as  current 
coin.  For  this  fundamentally  perverted  hypothesis, 
built  up  on  false  critical  principles,  there  is  no  ground 
or  occasion  in  the  contents  or  expressions  of  ch.  17-26. 
The  truth  is  that  in  these  chapters  are  contained 
in  part  the  very  oldest  laws,  which  are  not  only  pre- 
supposed in  Ezekiel  and  Deuteronomy,  but  are  also 
echoed  in  all  the  prophetical  and  other  literature  of 
the  pre-exilic  period."  Dr.  Dillmann's  own  hypothe- 
sis is  that  there  were  two  revisions  of  these  ancient 
laws,  one  by  the  Elohist,  the  other  probably  by  the 
Jehovist,  and  that  these  were  subsequently  combined 
by  the  Redactor  into    the    present  text.      The  an- 

*  "  Die  Bucher  Exodus  und  Leviticus,"  p.  533. 


AND  THE  PASSOVER. 


177 


tiquity  of  the  laws  we  accept.  As  the  literary  labors 
which,  it  is  so  confidently  affirmed,  were  subse- 
quently expended  upon  them,  rest  upon  very  uncertain 
and  precarious  proofs,  however  ingeniously  and  learn- 
edly adduced,  we  may  be  excused  from  accepting 
them  for  the  present,  and  be  allowed  to  wait  at  least 
until  the  critics  come  to  some  common  understand- 
ing on  the  subject. 

The  feast  law  just  considered  stands  near  the  close 
of  the  Sinaitic  legislation,  and  is  almost  immediately 
followed  by  the  numbering  of  the  people,  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  camp,  the  order  of  march,  and  the  actual 
departure  for  the  promised  land.  Then  came  the 
trespass  for  which  they  were  condemned  to  wander 
forty  years  in  the  desert.  At  the  end  of  the  predicted 
term  they  find  themselves  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  op- 
posite Jericho.  The  people  are  numbered  afresh,  and 
it  is  found  that  the  entire  generation  sentenced  to  die 
in  the  wilderness  had  passed  away.  Moses  nominated 
Joshua  as  his  successor,  and  laid  his  hands  upon  him. 
And  now  when  they  were  thus  upon  the  point  of 
entry  into  Canaan  a  supplementary  law  was  given, 
which  would  have  had  no  application  before,  but 
could  no  longer  be  delayed.  The  fact  had  been 
stated  in  the  preceding  law  that  sacrifices  were  to  be 
offered  at  the  several  feasts,  but  no  specifications  had 
been  given.  Num.  28,  29  supply  the  necessary  com- 
plement by  furnishing  ample  details  upon  this  point. 

Two  laws  yet  remain  to  complete  the  legislation 
respecting  the  annual  feasts  :  and  these  are  as  appro- 
priate to  the  occasion  on  which  they  were  delivered, 
and  as  suitable  for  the  purpose  of  completing  pre- 
12 


1 78  THE  FEAST  LA  IVS 

vious  enactments,  as  those  which  we  have  already 
examined.  The  occasion  for  one  was  furnished  by 
the  first  observance  of  the  Passover  after  the  people 
had  left  Egypt.  Some  persons  who  were  ceremoni- 
ally defiled,  were  unable  to  partake  of  it,  and  permis- 
sion was  given  that  they  and  all  similarly  affected  in 
future  might  keep  the  Passover  in  a  subsequent 
month,  Num.  9 :  i  ff .'  It  has  been  alleged  as  impair- 
ing the  credibility  of  this  narrative,  that  it  is  out  of 
its  true  chronological  position  :  but  this  is  a  mistake. 
It  is  introduced  not  at  the  time  of  the  proper,  but  of 
the  secondary  Passover,  for  the  sake  of  which  it  was 
mentioned  at  all. 

The  remaining  law,  the  last  of  the  series,  is  found 
in  Moses*  final  address  to  the  people,  Deut.  16.  They 
were  soon  to  be  settled  in  Canaan  and  scattered  in 
every  quarter  of  the  land.  The  legislator  lifts  his 
earnest  and  warning  voice  to  remind  them  that  these 
feasts  must  be  kept  not  at  their  several  homes,  as  the 
Passover  had  been  in  Egypt,  but  only  at  ''  the  place 
which  the  Lord  should  choose  to  place  his  name 
there."  They  were  about  to  occupy  a  land  of  idola- 
ters, where  images  and  altars  abounded  everywhere, 
and  the  unity  of  the  sanctuary  was  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance for  the  preservation  of  the  worship  of  the 
one  true  God.  Hence  the  urgency  and  repetition 
with  which  this  one  essential  matter  of  sacrificing  no- 
where but  at  the  place  to  be  chosen  by  the  LORD  is 
pressed  in  the  book  of  Deuteronomy.  The  law  had 
not  yet  come  into  full  and  developed  operation,  many 
of  its  provisions  being  only  practicable  in  Canaan, 
and  many  irregularities  had  been  necessarily  tolerated 


AND  THE  PASSOVER,  tyg 

in  the  wilderness,  Deut.  I2:8f.;  but  when  they  were 
securely  and  permanently  established  in  the  land 
which  had  been  promised  them,  their  happiness  and 
welfare  would  lie  in  strict  obedience  to  the  law  of 
God  in  this  particular  as  in  every  other. 

The  fact  that  the  law  in  Deuteronomy  does  not  re- 
peat the  prescriptions  of  Leviticus  and  Numbers,  is 
no  indication,  as  the  critics  of  the  most  recent  school 
would  persuade  us,  that  it  is  of  earlier  date,  and  that 
the  elaborate  ceremonial  which  they  describe  was  a 
subsequent  growth.  This  is  not  a  law  giving  full  di- 
rections for  the  observance  of  the  festivals.  It  limits 
itself  designedly  to  the  three  pilgrimage  feasts,  and 
the  main  point  insisted  upon  is  the  place  of  ob- 
servance. As  in  regard  to  the  plague  of  leprosy,  Deut. 
24 : 8  contents  itself  with  a  simple  reference  to  laws 
previously  given,  so  it  is  here.  The  ritual  had  been 
sufficiently  set  forth  in  other  laws,  which  there  was 
no  need  of  repeating ;  to  do  so  would  only  encumber 
the  law  now  given  and  cover  up  the  very  design  with 
which  the  subject  was  mentioned  at  all.  That  silence 
is  no  proof  of  want  of  knowledge  is  explicitly  admit- 
ted by  Kuenen,'  who  says  in  relation  to  another  mat- 
ter: "The  Deuteronomist  was  acquainted  with  this 
custom,  but  for  reasons  sufficient  for  himself,  does 
not  expressly  mention  it."  And  Wellhausen'  adds 
that  "in  Deuteronomy  the  most  is  left  to  existing 
usages,  and  only  the  one  main  matter  is  constantly 
emphasized  that  divine  worship  and  consequently  also 
the  feasts  could  only  be  celebrated   in  Jerusalem." 

'  "  Religion  of  Israel,"  II.,  p.  88. 

^  "  Geschichte  Israels,"  p.  94  ;  Prolegomena  (Eng.  Trans.),  p.  91. 


l80  THE  FEAST  LAWS 

And  as  we  have  seen  already,  no  one  of  the  feast  laws 
is  independent  of  the  rest  and  complete  in  itself. 
Each  has  its  own  specific  purpose  to  which  it  stead- 
fastly adheres,  and  its  particular  place  in  the  system 
to  which  it  belongs.  No  one  repeats  the  rest  or  su- 
persedes them ;  but  all  are  mutually  supplementary, 
and  it  is  from  the  combination  of  the  whole  that  the 
complete  view  of  these  ordinances  is  obtained.  The 
laws  are  thus  not  only  in  entire  harmony,  but  indis- 
pensable to  one  another,  each  resting  upon  and  im- 
plying the  existence  of  the  rest ;  so  that  the  attempt 
to  rend  them  from  one  another  as  though  they  were 
the  products  of  distinct  ages,  or  to  assign  them  any 
other  position  than  that  which  is  plainly  given  to 
them  in  the  inspired  record,  is  unwarranted  and  inad- 
missible. 

From  this  general  view  of  the  mutual  relationship 
and  interdependence  of  the  feast  laws  we  may  now 
proceed  to  particulars.  We  are  told  that  the  develop- 
ment of  the  several  feasts  in  their  successive  stages 
is  clearly  traceable  in  these  laws. 

(  Eil^  it  is  alleged  that  the  Passover  was  not  orig- 
inally  connected  with  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread, 
but  their  combination  was  effected  at  a  later  period. 
Kuenen*  undertakes  to  exhibit  this  by  arranging  the 
laws  in  the  following  order:  i.  The  Book  of  the 
Covenant,  23  :  i"^^  speaks  only  of  the  feast  of  Unleav- 
ened Bread,  and  makes  no  mention  of  the  Passover ; 
the  dedication  of  the  first-born,  22  :  30,  took  place  on 
the  eighth  day  after  birth,  and  could,  therefore,  have 
no  connection  with  any  of  the  yearly  feasts.  2.  Ex 
'  "  Religion  of  Israel,"  II.,  p.  87. 


AND  THE  PASSOVER,  t8l 

13:3-10  has  again  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread 
without  the  Passover,  but  it  is  enclosed  between  two 
laws  relating  to  the  first-born  which  shows  "very 
plainly  the  endeavor  to  connect  the  dedication  of  the 
first-born"  with  this  festival.  3.  Ex.  34  :  18,  the  feast 
of  Unleavened  Bread  is  connected  again  with  the  ded- 
ication of  the  first-born,  and  here  for  the  first  time 
mention  is  made  of  ''  the  sacrifice  of  the  feast  of  the 
Passover,"  ver.  25.  4.  Deut.  16:1-8  combines  the 
Passover  and  the  fe^  of  Unleavened  Bread  under 
one  common  name,  but  gives  no  prominence  to  the  pas- 
chal lamb,  which  is  left  in  the  background  beside  the 
first-born  of  oxen  and  sheep  produced  during  the  past 
year,  and  which  were  eaten  at  sacrificial  meals  during 
the  following  days  of  the  feast.  ^tli_aiidj6iial]y.  Ex. 
12,  which  stands  on  the  same  platform  with  Lev.  23 
and  Num.  9  and  28,  makes  the  Passover  meal  the 
prominent  thing,  and  its  union  with  the  feast  of  Un- 
leavened Bread  is  now  complete.  According  to  this 
scheme  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  was  originally 
a  thing  by  itself  and  quite  independent  of  the  custom 
which  prevailed  of  Consecrating  the  firstlings  of  their 
cattle  to  God,  whenever  they  were  eight  days  old. 
Gradually  the  usage  was  formed  of  presenting  the 
firstlings  of  the  entire  year  at  one  particular  season, 
that  of  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread.  The  service 
was  then  introduced  of  sacrificing  a  Passover  lamb  at 
the  beginning  of  the  feast ;  but  still  the  firstlings 
which  were  partaken  of  throughout  the  festal  week 
were  regarded  as  the  main  thing.  Finally,  however, 
the  firstlings  came  to  be  reckoned  the  due  of  the 
priests  and  were  no  longer  eaten  by  the  offerers ;  then 


I  g2  THE  FEAST  LA  WS 

the  Passover  lamb  alone  remained  in  connection  with 
the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,  the  two  being  thence- 
forward considered  one  festival,  which  bore  either 
name  indifferently  as  in  the  New  Testament. 

But  this  interesting  piece  of  ritual  history  is  a  sheer 
invention  of  the  critic  and  vanishes  altogether  upon 
examination.     I  remark  upon  it — 

I .  The  symmetry  of  this  progressive  scheme  is  spoiled 
by  those  critics  who  place  Kuenen's  third  law  prior 
to  his  first,  i.  e.,  Ex.  34  before  23  ;  for  then  "  the  sac- 
rifice of  the  feast  of  the  Passover"  is  distinctly  named 
in  the  very  first  law  as  well  as  the  feast  of  Unleavened 
Bread.  But  even  if  Kuenen's  order  is  maintained  it 
is  unfortunate  for  his  speculation  that  a  phrase  pre- 
cisely identical  in  signification  occurs  in  ch.  23  itself. 
Vs.  17-19  are  plainly  supplementary  to  the  three  pre- 
ceding verses,  adding  some  particulars  respecting  the 
observance  of  the  feasts  there  enjoined.  Ver.  17  thus 
attaches  itself  to  ver.  14,  declaring  that  at  each  of  the 
annual  feasts  all  the  males  should  appear  before  Jeho- 
vah at  his  sanctuary.  Ver.  19  connects  with  ver.  16, 
directing  that  at  the  feast  of  harvest  or  first-fruits,  the 
first-fruits  of  the  land  should  be  brought  to  the  house 
of  God ;  and  those  interpreters  are  probably  correct 
in  their  conjecture  who  suppose  that  "  seething  the 
kid  in  its  mother's  milk"  alludes  to  some  pagan  prac- 
tice at  the  time  of  the  ingathering.  In  like  manner 
the  intervening  ver.  18  must  relate  to  ver.  15,  so  that 
the  words,  "  Thou  shalt  not  sacrifice  the  blood  of  my 
sacrifice  with  leavened  bread  ;  neither  shall  the  fat  of 
my  feast  remain  until  the  morning,"  must  be  a  regu- 
lation concerning  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread.     It 


AND  THE  PASSO  VER. 


83 


appears  then  from  the  language  of  this  law  itself  that 
there  belonged  to  this  feast  a  bloody  sacrifice,  includ- 
ing, as  the  term  used  always  implies,  a  sacrificial  meal, 
and  that  from  it  leaven  was  to  be  excluded.  This 
sacrifice  is  further  called  a  feast,  and  its  fat  must  not 
be  suffered  to  remain  until  the  morning.  Fat  is 
doubtless  used  here  as  sometimes  elsewhere,'  of  choice 
rich  food ;  and  the  meaning  is  that  no  part  of  the 
dainty  flesh  of  the  sacrifice  must  be  left  till  the  next 
day,  Ex.  12  :  10. 

Dillmann  insists  that  the  verse  has  no  special  rela- 
tion to  the  Passover,  but  that  its  terms  are  to  be  taken 
in  the  utmost  generality  as  a  prohibition  of  leaven 
with  any  sacrifice  and  of  delay  in  burning  the  fat  des- 
tined for  the  altar  at  any  of  the  feasts.  But — i.  This 
is  contradicted  by  34:  25,  the  most  ancient  and  reli- 
able commentary  upon  its  meaning,  which  expounds 
it  of  the  Passover  and  its  sacrificial  meal.  2.  Jehovah 
had  as  yet  instituted  in  Israel  no  sacrifice  and  es- 
pecially none  in  connection  with  any  feast,  except 
the  Passover.  3.  The  words  "as  I  commanded  thee" 
in  this  law,  can  have  no  other  reference,  as  Dillmann 
admits,  than  to  Ex.  12,  13.  He  alleges  indeed  that 
this  clause,  though  original  in  34:  18,  is  here  interpo- 
lated by  the  Redactor,  for  which  his  only  reason  is 
that  its  presence  in  one  passage  can  be  accounted  for 
on  his  critical  hypothesis  and  in  the  other  it  can  not. 
And  so  instead  of  accommodating  his  hypothesis  to 
the  facts,  the  facts  are  made  to  conform  to  his  hy- 
pothesis. Wellhausen  relieves  the  whole  difficulty  in 
the  case  by  resorting  to  the  ultima  ratio  criticorum 
'  Comp.  Gen.  45  :  18,  Deut.  32  :  14,  Ps.  63  :  5,  8  r  :  16,  Ezek.  34  : 3. 


1 84  THE  FEAST  LA  Wt> 

and  expunging  vs.  17-19,  which  is  simply  confessing 
that  they  are  an  obstruction  of  which  he  can  not  rid 
himself  otherwise. 

2.  Kuencn's  second  law  affords  no  more  support  to 
his  theory  than  his  first,  if  Knobel,  Kayser,  Schrader 
and  Dillmann  are  correct  in  their  critical  analysis  ; 
they  all  connect  Ex.  13  :  3-10  with  the  preceding  ex- 
plicit mention  of  the  Passover. 

3.  The  fact  that  the  direction  to  consecrate  the 
firstlings  to  the  LORD  stands  in  several  of  the  laws 
in  close  proximity  to  the  direction  to  observe  the 
feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  does  not  prove  that  the 
firstlings  were  offered  at  this  feast.  It  may  be  plau- 
sibly conjectured  that  this  was  the  case,  but  it  is  no- 
where affirmed.  Deut.  15  :  20  speaks  of  their  being 
eaten  year  by  year  before  the  Lord  in  the  place  which 
the  Lord  shall  choose,  but  gives  no  intimation  of  the 
season  at  which  this  should  be  done.  It  may  be  sup- 
posed that  it  would  be  most  convenient  to  do  this  at 
some  one  of  the  annual  festivals  ;  but  this  is  not 
required,  and  nothing  is  definitely  known  about  it. 
The  conjunction  in  the  law  is  sufficiently  accounted 
for  by  their  springing  from  the  same  root.  It  is 
upon  the  events  of  the  exodus,  which  was  com- 
memorated in  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,  that  the 
law  uniformly  rests  the  sanctity  of  the  first-born  in 
man  and  beast.  The  combination  of  the  Passover 
with  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  is,  however,  quite 
independent  of  the  question  whether  firstlings  were 
or  were  not  presented  at  this  feast ;  for  the  rite  of 
the  Passover  did  not  in  any  way  originate  from  such 
presentation. 


AND  THE  PASSOVER,  185 

4.  The  fourth  and  fifth  in  the  series  of  feast  laws, 
as  these  are  arranged  by  Kuenen,  lend  no  more  sup- 
port to  his  hypothesis  than  those  which  we  have 
already  considered.  In  Deut.  16  :  i,  2,  the  word 
*  Passover '  is  used  in  a  comprehensive  sense,  em- 
bracing along  with  the  paschal  meal  proper  which 
introduced  the  feast,  all  the  sacrificial  meals  of  the 
entire  seven  days  during  which  it  lasted.  The  Pass- 
over thus  becomes  co-extensive  with  the  feast  of  Un- 
leavened Bread  itself.  This  has  no  parallel  in  the 
laws  which  he  places  last  in  order.  In  Ex.  12,  Lev.  23, 
Num.  28  Passover  and  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread 
are  uniformly  distinguished,  the  former  being  used 
in  the  strict  sense  and  limited  to  the  paschal  lamb 
on  the  evening  preceding  the  feast  ;  and  in  Num.  9 
'  Passover '  plainly  does  not  include  the  seven-day 
feast,  for  the  children  of  Israel  were  again  upon  the 
march,  10:  11,  before  the  term  of  seven  days  after 
the  secondary  Passover  had  expired.  The  only  real 
parallel  is  the  later  usage  of  2  Chron.  35  :  7-9  and  the 
New  Testandent.  So  that  if  it  be  insisted  upon  that 
there  has  been  a  progress  in  this  matter  it  amounts 
to  just  this,  that  the  word  '  Passover '  is  in  Deuter- 
onomy used  in  a  wider  sense  than  in  the  other  feast 
laws.  By  this  test,  then,  of  the  critic's  own  choosing, 
Deuteronomy,  in  which  this  advance  was  made,  must 
be  later  than  the  Levitical  law  or  the  so-called  Priest 
Code,  and  the  hypothesis  of  the  new  school  of  criti- 
cism, which  reverses  this  order,  is  found  wanting. 

But  the  alleged  development  which  has  thus  far 
engaged  our  attention  is  commonly  subordinated  to 
another,  a  change  which  is  held  to  have  taken  place  in 


1 86  THE  FEAST  LA  JVS 

the  conception  of  the  meaning  and  design  of  this 
feast.  It  is  maintained  that  it  was  at  first  purely  a 
nature-feast  connected  with  the  change  of  seasons,  or 
as  this  was  transfused  with  the  spirit  of  the  religion  of 
Israel  it  was  designed  to  express  gratitude  to  Jehovah 
for  the  increase  of  the  cattle  and  the  products  of  the 
soil.  But  it  came  ultimately  to  have  a  historical  and 
national  meaning  attached  to  it.  Thus  Wellhausen  ' 
argues  that  the  cycle  of  three  annual  feasts  must 
be  homogeneous  in  character.  The  names  given  to 
the  second  and  third  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant, 
Ex.  23  :  16,  are  the  feast  of  harvest  and  the  feast  of 
ingathering,  which  sufficiently  define  their  nature  and 
purpose.  The  name  of  the  feast  which  heads  the 
list  is  invariably  not  Passover,  but  the  feast  of  Un- 
leavened Bread.  The  second  feast  was  separated 
from  the  first  by  an  interval  of  seven  weeks,  which 
is  defined,  Deut.  16:9,  as  "seven  weeks  from  such 
time  as  thou  beginnest  to  put  the  sickle  to  the  corn." 
The  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  is  equivalent,  there- 
fore, to  the  beginning  of  harvest.  This  connection 
appears  still  further  from  the  usage,  Lev.  23  : 9  ff.,  of 
presenting  a  sheaf  of  the  first-fruits  at  this  feast. 
And  thus  the  name  of  the  feast  becomes  intelligible. 
Bread  baked  hastily  or  in  sudden  emergencies  was 
unleavened,  because  there  was  no  time  for  the  slow 
process  of  leavening ;  as  when  the  Israelites  left 
Egypt  in  haste,  or  Abraham  prepared  a  quick  meal 
for  his  guests  or  the  witch  of  Endor  for  Saul.  Dur- 
ing harvest,  time  was  not  taken  to  leaven  the  meal 

'  "Geschichte  Israels,"  I.,  p.  87.     Prolegomena  (Eng.  Trans.), 
p.  85. 


AND  THE  PASSOVER. 


187 


Trom  the  new  grain,  so  that  unleavened  bread  became 
characteristic  of  the  season. 

The  offering  of  firstlings  of  cattle  is  based  on  the 
same  general  principle  as  that  of  first-fruits.  Cain 
and  Abel  offering  respectively  the  produce  of  their 
fields  and  their  flocks  represent  the  simplest,  most 
natural  and  universal  form  of  sacrifice ;  and  as  these 
recur  annually  they  give  rise  to  feasts.  The  three 
annual  feasts  belong  to  the  one  class,  thanksgivings 
for  the  produce  of  the  soil ;  passover  to  the  other, 
thanks  for  the  increase  of  their  flocks.  The  first- 
fruits  of  barley  harvest  were  presented  at  the  feast 
of  Unleavened  Bread.  The  earliest  lambs  and  calves 
of  spring  were  ready  for  sacrifice  at  the  same  time, 
and  so  they  came  to  be  joined  to  the  same  festival. 
Neither  of  these  took  their  origin  from  the  exodus. 
They  were  not  established  because  of  any  historical 
event,  but  were  natural  expressions  of  the  primitive 
piety  respectively  of  agricultural  and  pastoral  life, 
which  prompted  an  offering  unto  God  from  the  gifts 
of  his  bounty. 

The  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,  he  further  tells  us, 
must  have  originated  in  Canaan,  for  the  Israelites 
first  learned  agriculture  from  the  Canaanites  and  bor- 
rowed from  them  the  festivals  connected  with  that 
mode  of  life,  only  transferring  their  homage  from 
Baal  to  Jehovah.  In  regard  to  the  sacrifice  of  first- 
lings traditions  vary.  In  one  of  the  oldest  extant 
codes  of  law,  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  which,  from 
its  agricultural  presuppositions,  is  nevertheless  sub- 
sequent to  the  settlement  in  Canaan,  the  feast  of  Un- 
leavened Bread  is  ordained,  but  no  feast  of  firstlings 


1 88  THE  FEAST  LA  IVS 

as  yet  existed,  Ex.  22 :  30.  The  Jehovist  tradition, 
however,  gives  a  different  version  of  the  matter,  viz., 
that  the  plea  urged  with  Pharaoh  for  the  exodus  was 
that  Israel  might  observe  a  feast  to  Jehovah  in  the 
wilderness,  and  for  this  purpose  they  must  take  their 
sheep  and  oxen' with  them  ;  so  that  the  pastoral  feast 
according  to  this  authority,  must  have  been  pre- 
Mosaic,  and  was  the  ground  of  the  exodus,  not  itself 
based  upon  it.  This  traditional  connection  came, 
however,  in  the  course  of  time  to  be  reversed,  and  the 
cause  was  transformed  into  the  effect.  It  came  to  be 
supposed  that  the  exodus  was  not  for  the  sake  of 
holding  the  feast,  but  that  the  feast  was  established 
with  a  view  to  the  exodus.  The  yearly  sacrifice  of 
the  first-born  gave  rise  to  the  story  that  the  first-born 
throughout  the  land  of  Egypt  were  smitten  with  pes- 
tilence to  accomplish  Israel's  deliverance,  and  that 
this  festival  was  instituted  in  commemoration  of  that 
event.  An  attempt  was  made  also  to  account  for  a 
like  origin  of  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  by  the 
story  of  the  extreme  haste  in  which  the  Israelites 
were  forced  out  of  Egypt. 

This  explanation,  he  goes  on  to  say,  glimmers 
through  in  earlier  statutes,  but  it  is  completely  estab- 
lished in  Deuteronomy,  whose  centralizing  tendency 
was  promoted  by  severing  this  feast  from  its  primitive 
association  with  individual  life  and  linking  it  with 
national  experiences.  Instead  of  each  pilgrim  ex- 
pressing his  personal  gratitude  to  God  for  benefits 
which  he  had  himself  received,  his  thoughts  were 
turned  rather  to  those  which  were  common  to  him 
with  his  fellow  pilgrims,  to  God's  goodness  to  Israel 


AND  THE  PASSOVER,  189 

as  a  people.  The  deliverance  from  Egypt  and  the 
gift  of  Canaan  conditioned  all  the  blessings  since  ex- 
perienced in  the  land  of  promise  ;  and  lively  gratitude 
for  the  former  embraced  and  contained  within  itself 
appreciation  of  the  latter.  Thankfulness  for  individual 
mercies  was  poured,  as  it  were,  into  the  common  re- 
ceptacle and  served  but  to  heighten  the  sense  of  God's 
goodness  to  Israel. 

This  radical  transformation  of  the  feast  thus  begun 
was  carried  to  its  last  extreme  in  the  Levitical  code, 
which  made  the  firstlings  a  perquisite  of  the  priests. 
The  festive  meals,  which  they  had  previously  afforded 
to  the  offerers,  were  thus  summarily  abolished.  In- 
stead of  these  offerings  on  individual  account  certain 
formal  and  prescribed  sacrifices  were  offered  in  the 
name  of  the  whole  people,  a  transaction  in  which  they 
did  not  participate,  but  which  was  purely  an  affair  of 
the  priests.  All  that  was  left  for  the  people  was  a 
frugal  meal  upon  the  paschal  lamb  at  the  initiation  of 
the  service.  In  the  words  of  Wellhausen,'  the  gen- 
eral character  of  the  feasts  "is  entirely  changed. 
They  no  longer  rest  on  the  seasons  and  the  fruits  of 
the  season,  and  indeed  have  no  basis  in  the  nature  of 
things.  They  are  simply  statutory  ordinances  resting 
on  a  positive  divine  command,  which  at  most  was 
issued  in  commemoration  of  some  historical  event. 
Their  relation  to  the  first-fruits  and  firstlings  is  quite 
gone ;  indeed  these  offerings  have  no  longer  any 
place  in  acts  of  worship,  being  transformed  into  a 
mere  tax,  which  is  holy  only  in  name."     This  sounds 

'  *•  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,"  Vol.  XVIII.,  Art.  Pentateuch, 
p.  5". 


190 


THE  FEAST  LA  WS 


like  a  pretty  severe  indictment.     Let  us  see  what  it 
amounts  to. 

I.  We  have  found   reason  already  to  dispute  the 
original  identity  of  the  passover  and  the  annual  offer- 
ing of  firstlings,  which  is  here  so  confidently  assumed. 
Even  if  their  joint  presentation  at  the  same  season 
were  to  be  admitted,  which  rests  on  plausible  conjec- 
ture, not  on  positive  proof,  there  is  no  ground  what- 
ever for  their  identification.     There  is  no  intimation 
anywhere  that  the  paschal  lamb  or  any  of  the  animals 
offered  at  the  ensuing  feast  were  or  ever  had  been 
firstlings.     According  to    Deut.   16:2,  the  Passover 
was   to   be  sacrificed  "of  the  flock  and  the  herd." 
This  does  not  mean  that  the  paschal  supper,  in  the 
strict  sense,  might  be  an  ox  as  well  as  a  lamb.     Dr. 
Robertson  Smith'  tells  us,  "  The  passover  is  a  sacri- 
fice drawn  from  the  flock  or  the  herd,"  "  slain  on  the 
evening  of  the  first  day  of  the  feast."     But  this  is 
plainly  inconsistent  with  what  immediately  follows  in 
the  language  of  the  law :  "  Seven  days  shalt  thou  eat 
unleavened    bread     therewith."      Consequently    the 
term  "  Passover,"  as  here  used,  can  only  denote,  as 
we  have  before  seen,  sacrifices  offered   day  by  day 
throughout  the  seven  days  of  the  feast ;  not  of  course 
the  burnt  and  sin  offerings.  Num.  28 :  19  ff.,  presented 
on  public  account,   with   which   no   sacrificial   meals 
were  connected,  but  vows  and  free-will  offerings  and 
peace-offerings   which   are  specifically  provided    for. 
Num.  29:39.     The  same  combination  of  lambs  and 
bullocks  at  the  Passover  is  found,  2  Chron.  35  •  7-9» 
long  after  the  Priest  Code  had  been  established  by  the 
»  "  Encyclopedia  Britannica,"  Vol.  XVIIL,  Art.  Passover,  p.  343. 


AND  THE  PASSO  VER.  I9I 

confession  of  the  critics  themselves,  and  in  a  book 
written,  as  they  declare,  wholly  in  its  interest.  Kuenen' 
explicitly  owns  the  distinction :  "  It  must  gradually 
have  become  customary  that  the  members  of  one 
family  should  eat  the  paschal  lamb  together,  and  that 
then  the  first-born  of  oxen  and  sheep  that  the  past 
year  had  produced  should  be  eaten  at  sacrificial  meals 
on  the  following  days  of  mazzoth.  This  is  what  the 
Deuteronomist  found  in  existence." 

2.  The  name  "  Passover  "  is  of  itself  an  insuperable 
obstacle  to  Wellhausen's  hypothesis  of  the  origin  of 
the  festival  so  called.  He  may  well  say,'  "  it  is  not 
clear  what  the  name  signifies,"  for  it  has  absolutely 
no  meaning  as  applied  to  a  thank-offering  of  firstlings. 
Dr.  Robertson  Smith,'  with  characteristic  ingenuity, 
comes  to  the  rescue,  and  urges  that  "  the  correspond- 
ing verb  denotes  some  kind  of  religious  performance, 
apparently  a  dance,  in  i  Kin.  18:26."  We  are  to 
presume,  then,  that  it  was  a  festival,  at  which  devo- 
tees executed  a  dance  like  that  of  the  prophets  of 
Baal  or  perchance  modern  dervishes.  The  brilliancy 
of  this  suggestion  is  as  though  one  were  to  infer  from 
the  fact  that  "  revolution  "  is  derived  from  ''  revolve," 
that  the  English  Revolution  was  so  called  because  it 
was  customary  to  carry  revolvers,  and  therefore  it 
could  not  have  taken  place  in  1688,  as  has  been  com- 
monly supposed,  but  must  be  assigned  to  some  period 
subsequent  to  Col.  Colt's  invention  in  1835. 

This  word  nOS  (passover)  has  given  not  a  little  em- 

'  "Religion  of  Israel,"  I.,  p.  93. 

'  "  Geschichte,"  p.  89.     Prolegomena  (Eng.  Trans.),  p.  87. 

3  Ubi  supra. 


192  THE  FEAST  LA  WS 

ployment  to  the  critics,  who  have  sought  each  in  his 
own  way  to  adapt  it  to  his  own  pecuHar  hypothesis. 
Apart  from  the  ridiculous  conceit  of  George  *  that 
the  writer  of  Ex.  12 :  ii  intimates  its  derivation  from 
IITSn  (haste),  it  has  been  explained  of  passing  over 
the  Red  Sea  or  the  Jordan,  or  the  sun  passing  over 
into  the  constellation  Aries,  or  the  winter  passing  over 
into  spring,  or  shepherds  with  their  flocks  passing 
over  from  their  huts  and  folds  into  the  open  pasture, 
or  passing  over  into  the  hazards  and  perils  of  a  new 
year,  or  some  deity  placated  by  sacrifice  passing  over 
the  first-born  child  of  a  family  instead  of  claiming  it 
as  his  due.  Widely  various  as  these  explanations  are, 
they  all  involve  the  idea  of  an  expiatory  offering  of 
some  sort  to  atone  for  the  past  or  to  obtain  divme 
protection  or  assistance  for  the  future.  In  this  exces- 
sive latitude  of  conjecture,  the  only  certain  guide  to 
its  signification  is  found  in  the  meaning  of  the  cog- 
nate verb,  by  which  it  is  three  times  explained  in  Ex. 
12:  13,  23,  27,  and  which  is  employed  in  the  same 
sense  by  Isaiah  31:5;  nD3  rneans  to  "  pass  over  "  in 
the  sense  of  sparing,  exempting  from  infliction. 

Kuenen '  accepts  this  only  authorized  interpreta- 
tion, and  affirms  "  that  the  paschal  sacrifice  is  a  sub- 
stitutional sacrifice,  that  the  animal  sacrificed  takes 
the  place  of  the  first-born  son,  to  whom  Jahveh  is 
considered  to  have  a  right  and  to  lay  claim."  And  he 
goes  on  to  elucidate  his  meaning :  '*  Originally  the 
father  of  every  family  on  the  eighth  day  after  the 
birth  of  his  first-born  son  offered  up  to  Jahveh  a  re* 
demption-offering,  which  was  called  noS  (passover) 

'  "Die  alteren  Jiidischen  Feste,"  p.  93.  '^  Ibid.,  p.  92. 


AND  THE  PASSOVER.  193 

for  the  reasons  just  indicated  :  viz.,  it  induced  Jah< 
veh  to  pass  over  or  spare  the  child,  to  which  he  had 
a  claim,  and  which,  therefore,  ought  really  to  have 
been  offered  up  to  him.  From  its  very  nature  this 
offering  was  of  a  private  character :  it  was  not  and 
could  not  be  congregational.  Now  it  must  gradually 
have  become  the  custom  to  offer  such  an  exemption- 
sacrifice  annually,  and  in  connection  with  this  to  com- 
bine it  with  one  of  the  feasts  that  recurred  annually 
with  mazzoth." 

This,  however,  is  leaving  the  ground  of  the  laws 
entirely.  The  development  of  the  Passover,  which 
Kuenen  here  propounds  to  us,  is  not  traced  in  the 
line  of  the  feast  laws,  but  constructed  altogether  out 
of  his  own  imagination,  without  even  the  pretence  of 
any  authority  on  which  to  base  it.  The  same  is  true 
of  all  those  hypotheses  reviewed  in  a  former  lecture, 
which  maintain  the  pre-Mosaic  origin  of  the  Passover, 
and  connect  it  with  the  expiatory  rites  usual  at  the 
spring  festival  of  ancient  pagan  nations.  The  rela- 
tion assumed  is  purely  conjectural  and  without  evi- 
dence. Baur '  regards  the  Passover  as  the  mollified 
remnant  of  an  ancient  barbarous  usage  which  originally 
demanded  the  sacrifice  of  the  first-born  child,  for 
which  a  lamb  was  substituted,  as  the  ram  for  Isaac. 
This  view,  especially  in  the  more  atrocious  manner  of 
its  presentation  by  Nork,  Ghillany  and  the  like,  is 
justly  repelled  by  Wellhausen  ^  in  the  following 
terms :  **  The  view  of  certain  scholars,  mostly  raid- 
ers upon   Old  Testament  territory,  that  the  slayiup' 

1  "  Tiibinger  Zeitschrift,"  1832,  Heft  I.,  pp.  49,  67. 
5  "  Geschichte,"  p.  91.     Prolegomena  (Eng.  Trans.),  p.  88. 
13 


194  I'HE  FEAST  LA  WS 

of  the  first-born  child  was  originally  the  main  matte! 
in  the  Passover,  scarcely  deserves  refutation.  .  .  . 
There  are  certainly  in  history  some  attested  examples 
of  the  surrender  of  an  only  or  best-beloved  child,  but 
always  as  a  voluntary  and  quite  extraordinary  deed. 
....  The  sacrifice  of  human  first-borns  never  was 
a  regular  and  required  payment  in  ancient  times; 
there  are  no  traces  of  such  an  enormous  blood-tax, 
but  very  many  of  the  superior  rank  accorded  to  the 
oldest  sons." 

In  the  absence  of  any  historical  testimony  on  the 
subject  and  in  the  limited  extent  of  our  information 
as  to  the  religious  festivals  of  Egypt  or  of  any  other 
pagan  nation  in  the  Mosaic  age,  it  is  certainly  very 
precarious  to  allege  that  the  Passover  was  borrowed 
in  any  of  its  characteristic  features  from  any  of  them. 
If  a  connection  be  maintained  between  it  and  the 
spring  festivals  of  the  ancient  world,  it  can  only  be 
in  that  general  way  in  which  all  symbolical  religions 
are  bound  together,  the  common  points  in  whose 
ritual  represent  principles  which  have  their  seat  in 
the  universal  nature  of  man ;  while  all  in  the  religion 
of  Israel  is  transfused  with  its  own  pure  and  exalted 
spirit  by  being  taken  into  the  service  of  Jehovah,  and 
rendered  fit  to  express  and  stimulate  that  worship 
which  he  demands  and  expects  from  Israel. 

No  mention  is  made  of  any  annual  religious  festi- 
val as  observed  by  the  patriarchs  or  by  the  children 
of  Israel  during  their  residence  in  Egypt.  The  first 
intimation  of  the  sort  is  in  the  demand  upon  Pharaoh 
to  let  the  people  go  that  they  may  hold  a  feast  unto 
Jehovah  in  the  wilderness.     While  this  implies  that 


AND  THE  PASSO  VER. 


195 


the  idea  of  a  religious  feast  was  known  to  both  the 
king  and  the  people,  doubtless  from  the  usages  of  the 
Egyptians,  it  also  implies  that  such  a  festival  had  not 
been  observed  by  them  before,  inasmuch  as  it  was 
necessary  for  them  to  leave  the  country  for  its  cele- 
bration. Dillmann  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Moses  in  his  first  mention  of  it  to  the  people,  Ex. 
12:21,  calls  it  "  the  Passover,"  as  though  it  was  some- 
thing with  which  they  were  already  familiar :  but  all 
the  seeming  force  of  this  suggestion  grows  out  of  his 
critical  dissection  of  the  chapter,  by  which  it  is  sep- 
arated from  ver.  1 1,  where  it  is  spoken  of  for  the  first 
time,  and  is  indefinite  in  the  Hebrew,  "  a  Passover  to 
Jehovah." 

The  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  is  declared  by  Well- 
hausen  to  be  in  its  proper  sense  a  harvest  festival. 
This  is  an  inference  resting  upon  premises  which  do 
not  warrant  it.  i.  It  is  nowhere  affirmed  or  implied  in 
the  laws  themselves ;  whereas  it  is  explicitly  affirmed 
in  the  laws  of  every  successive  period,  as  the  critics 
are  pleased  to  classify  them,  that  it  was  observed  in 
commemoration  of  the  exodus.  Thus  the  reason 
given  in  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  Ex.  23:  15,  and 
in  what  Wellhausen  calls  the  law  of  the  two  tables, 
Ex.  34:  18,  and  in  Deuteronomy  16:3  for  observing 
the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,  is  their  coming  forth 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  And  in  Ex.  12,  13,  which 
as  we  have  seen  is  neither  a  record  of  conflicting  tra- 
ditions nor  law  in  the  guise  of  history,  but  a  simple 
trustworthy  historical  record,  all  the  circumstances  of 
the  original  institution  of  the  Passover  and  of  the 
feast  of  Unleavened    Bread,  together  with  the  first 


1 96  THE  FEAST  LA  IVS 

observance  of  the  former  on  the  night  of  the  exodus^ 
are  stated  with  minute  detail.  The  testimony  is  all 
of  one  purport,  and  there  is  nothing  to  contradict  it 
or  set  it  aside.  The  assertion  '  that  the  reference  to 
the  exodus  in  both  Ex.  23  and  34  is  a  later  addition, 
and  not  part  of  the  original  text,  is  made  simply  in 
the  interest  of  a  critical  hypothesis,  which  those  un- 
welcome words  flatly  contradict,  and  accordingly  they 
must  be  gotten  out  of  the  way.  Some  astute  critic 
might  with  equal  reason  draw  the  most  formidable 
conclusions  from  the  absence  of  all  mention  of  the 
Passover  or  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  in  the 
gospel  of  Mark,  and  when  confronted  by  the  fact  that 
they  are  mentioned  in  repeated  passages  gravely  in- 
sist that  these  must  be  interpolations  from  Matthew 
and  Luke,  inasmuch  as  Mark  never  referred  to  those 
festivals. 

2.  The  fact  that  the  two  remaining  feasts  of  the 
cycle  are  harvest  festivals,  does  not  make  it  necessary 
to  suppose  that  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  was 
one  also,  unless  there  was  no  other  ground  of  gratitude 
to  Jehovah,  and  no  other  reason  for  his  worship  than 
his  bounty  shown  in  the  annual  products  of  the  soil. 
Why  should  they  praise  Jehovah  for  giving  them  the 
fruits  of  the  earth  and  not  for  delivering  them  out  of 
Egypt  and  giving  them  the  land  out  of  which  these 
fruits  sprang  ?  Why  should  this  great  initial  benefit, 
which  was  the  basis  of  every  other,  and  really  com- 
prehended every  other,  as  Wellhauscn  himself  takes 
pains  to  show,  be  alone  unacknowledged  ?  It  is  this 
which  is  set  forth  as  the  ground  of  homage  and  obe- 

'  Wellhausen,  "  Geschichte,"  p.  89. 


AND  THE  PASSO  VER, 


197 


dience  in  the  preface  to  the  ten  commandments, 
Ex.  20  :  2  ;  so  likewise  not  only  in  the  farewell  ad« 
dress  of  Joshua,  Josh.  24  :  5  ff.,  to  the  authenticity  of 
which  the  critics  might  object,  but  in  the  book  of 
Judges,  2  :  i,  6  :  8  ff.,  which  they  reckon  one  of  their 
strongholds,  and  in  the  earliest  prophets,  Hos.  11  :  i, 
12  :  9,  13,  13:  4;  Am.  2:  10,  3:1;  Isa.  11  :  15,  16. 
When  Jeroboam  established  his  separatist  worship, 
he  sought  to  draw  the  people  to  his  idolatrous  sanctu- 
aries at  Bethel  and  at  Dan  by  the  appeal,  "  Behold, 
thy  God,  O  Israel,  which  brought  thee  up  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,"  i  Kin.  12:28.  If  anything  could 
kindle  the  enthusiastic  devotion  of  an  Israelite  to 
Jehovah  his  God  and  the  God  of  his  fathers,  it  was 
this.  There  was  perfect  harmony  in  the  festal  cycle, 
which  celebrated  in  the  opening  year  the  God  who 
made  Israel  a  people  and  gave  them  the  land  flowing 
with  milk  and  honey ;  and  then  in  the  other  festivals 
that  followed  in  its  course  made  grateful  mention  of 
his  benefits  bestowed  upon  them  in  that  goodly  land, 
comp.  Deut.  26:  8-10. 

3.  To  make  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  a  harvest 
festival  is  not  only  not  required  by  the  symmetry  of 
the  festal  cycle,  but  actually  mars  that  symmetry.  A 
feast  of  seven  days  at  the  beginning  of  harvest,  and 
a  feast  of  but  one  day  at  its  close,  when  all  has  been 
reaped  and  stored,  is  surely  incongruous.  The  order 
should  at  least  have  been  reversed,  since  a  livelier 
and  more  profound  gratitude  is  to  be  expected  of 
him  who  has  been  put  in  actual  and  secure  posses- 
sion of  the  divine  gifts,  than  of  him  who  holds  them 
only  in  expectancy.     And  this  view  naturally  leads 


198 


THE  FEAST  LA  WS 


to  the  conclusion,  actually  maintained  by  Ewald, 
that  the  second  was  not  an  independent  feast,  but 
was  a  mere  sequel  or  termination  of  the  first,  whose 
significance  it  shared ;  so  that  the  three  annual  feasts 
are  virtually  reduced  to  two.  But  in  every  law  bear- 
ing upon  the  subject,  they  are  uniformly  reckoned 
three  distinct  feasts.  Thus,  too,  results  even  more 
clearly  than  before  the  singular  anomaly  that  the 
feast  designed  to  testify  the  husbandman's  joy  and 
gratitude  is  celebrated  before  the  reaping  has  begun, 
whereas  the  nature  of  the  case  demands  what  uni- 
versal experience  attests,  that  the  burst  of  joy  comes 
when  he  has  gathered  his  harvest  home. 

4.  While  the  terms  applied  in  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  to  the  second  and  third  members  of  the 
festal  series,  the  feast  of  Harvest  and  the  feast  of  In- 
gathering, suffi:iently  describe  their  character,  the 
designation  of  the  first,  the  feast  of  Unleavened 
Bread,  stands  in  no  special  relation  to  the  harvest, 
while  it  is  eminently  appropriate  to  a  historical  com- 
memoration. A  great  variety  of  reasons  have  been 
suggested  for  the  use  of  unleavened  bread  in  the 
ritual  in  general  and  in  this  feast  in  particular.  Philo ' 
suggests  that  while  leaven  is  artificial,  unleavened 
bread  is  more  simple  and  natural,  as  it  was  also  the 
primitive  food  of  men,  and  as  such  employed  in  this 
spring  festival,  which  commemorates  the  new-born 
earth.  George,''  that  it  was  the  coarse  barley  food 
of  the  ancients,  which  maintained  its  place  in  the 
ritual,  though  in  progressive  culture  leavened  wheat 

'  "  De  Septenario,"  §  19. 

«  "  Die  illtcren  JUdischen  Feste,"  p.  225. 


AND  THE  PASSO  VER. 


199 


bread  had  supplanted  it  in  common  use.  Red- 
slob/  on  the  contrary,  that  made  as  it  was  of  fine 
wheat  flour  it  was  the  most  delicate  kind  of  bread 
and  such  as  set  before  honored  guests.  Gramberg,' 
that  it  derived  its  sacredness  from  association  with 
legends  such  as  those  of  Abraham,  Gen.  18  :  6;  Lot, 
19:3,  and  Gideon,  Judg.  6:19.  Baur,^  that  it  is 
refraining  from  the  bread  in  common  use,  such  as 
they  had  eaten  in  the  guilty  past,  and  commencing 
anew  in  promise  of  a  new  and  different  life.  Knobel, 
Wellhausen,  Dillmann  and  others  connect  it  with  the 
harvest  period,  when  bread  is  prepared  hastily  from 
the  new  grain  without  waiting  for  it  to  be  leavened. 
But  unleavened  bread  is  nowhere  mentioned  as  an 
ordinary  accompaniment  of  the  harvest.  The  food 
then  eaten  was  parched  corn,  Ruth  2  :  14.  First- 
fruits  were  offered  either  in  the  ear.  Lev.  2  :  14,  23  :  10, 
or  as  leavened  bread,  2  :  12,  23  :  17.  Unleavened  cakes 
were  eaten  in  Gilgal,  Josh.  5:11,  not  because  it  was 
the  time  of  harvest,  but  of  the  Passover.  And  this 
would  not  at  any  rate  account  for  its  use  at  the 
paschal  supper,  where  the  unleavened  bread  must 
necessarily  be  of  the  old  grain.  Lev.  23  :  14,  as  in  fact 
it  may  sometimes  have  been  during  the  whole  of  the 
ensuing  feast,  at  least  in  certain  parts  of  the  land. 

The  prohibition  of  leaven  in  this  feast  and  in  the 
altar  ceremonial.  Lev.  2:  ii,  must  be  similarly  ex- 
plained.   Unleavened  bread  was,  as  the  Hebrew  word 

1  "  Die  biblischen  Angaben  iiber  Stiftung  und  Grund  der  Pascha 
feier,"  pp.  45,  46. 
^  "  Religionsideen,"  p.  273. 
8  "TUbinger  Zeitschrift,"  1832,  Heft  I.,  p.  71. 


200  THE  FEAST  LA  WS 

denotes,  pure.  Leaven  produces  fermentation,  which 
tends  to  corruption  and  decay ;  it  thus  became  the 
symbol  of  malice  and  wickedness,  as  unleavened  bread 
of  sincerity  and  truth,  i  Cor.  5  :  8.  Dr.  Dillmann  ob- 
jects that  if  this  were  all,  any  other  symbol  of  purity 
would  have  answered  as  well ;  so  that  the  selection 
of  unleavened  bread  is  still  unaccounted  for.  But 
this  is  readily  explained  by  the  consideration  that  it 
must  be  an  article  of  food,  since  the  thing  to  be  ex- 
pressed is  communion  with  God  in  a  sacred  meal. 
And  this  symbolical  signification  is  needed  to  account 
for  the  rigor  with  which  all  leaven  was  excluded  from 
their  houses  and  the  eating  of  it  forbidden  upon  pain 
of  death,  Ex.  12  :  15,  19.  With  this  Deut.  16  :  3  is 
not  inconsistent,  where  unleavened  bread  is  called 
"the  bread  of  affliction."  This  does  not  mean  that, 
as  less  palatable  food,  it  was  intended  as  the  bread  of 
humility  or  penitence  or  to  remind  them  of  the  afflic- 
tion of  Egypt.  In  that  case  it  would,  like  the  bitter 
herbs,  have  been  limited  to  the  paschal  meal  instead  of 
being  continued  throughout  the  entire  seven  days  of 
this  feast  of  joy  and  gratitude.  It  was  indeed,  as  this 
passage  declares,  associated  with  the  haste  with  which 
they  left  Egypt,  and  thus  with  their  happy  escape 
from  bondage  rather  than  with  the  bondage  itself. 

Hupfeld '  thinks  that  the  sacrifice  of  the  Passover 
and  the  unleavened  bread  have  their  parallel  in  the 
ram  of  consecration  and  the  unleavened  bread  used 
in  setting  Aaron  and  his  sons  apart  to  the  priesthood, 
Lev.  8  :  22  ff.,  and  that  it  was  designed  as  in  some 
sort  a  priestly  consecration  of  the  entire  people.  But 
'  "  De  primitiva  festorum  ratione,"  Part  I.,  pp.  23,  24. 


AND  THE  PASSOVER.  20 1 

to  this  it  is  sufficient  to  reply  that  the  flesh  of  the 
ram  was  boiled,  not  roasted ;  and  that  uncircumcised 
foreigners  as  well  as  native  Israelites  were  required  to 
eat  unleavened  bread.  Israel,  atoned  for  by  the  sacri- 
vice  of  the  Passover  and  freed  from  the  leaven  of 
Egypt  and  feeding  upon  pure  bread,  was  consecrated 
not  to  the  priesthood,  but  as  a  holy  people  in  com- 
munion with  a  holy  God. 

5.  The  sheaf  of  the  first-fruits  was  to  be  waved 
before  the  LORD  at  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread ; 
but  if  this  proves  it  to  be  a  harvest  festival,  Well- 
hausen's  conclusion  on  his  own  principles  should  be 
precisely  the  reverse  of  that  which  he  actually  draws. 
This  regulation  is  found  only  in  Lev.  23  :  9-14,  an 
Elohist  law,  which  we  are  told  is  the  latest  stratum 
of  the  whole.  In  all  earlier  laws  the  reason  given  for 
the  observance  is  the  exodus  from  Egypt.  A  histori- 
cal commemoration  has,  therefore,  in  the  course  of 
ages  been  converted  into  a  thanksgiving  for  the  prod- 
ucts of  the  earth,  not  vice  versd,  as  he  would  per- 
suade us.  In  actual  fact,  however,  neither  the  cere- 
mony nor  the  expression  employed,  Deut.  16  :  9,  in 
allusion  to  it,  "such  time  as  thou  beginnest  to  put  the 
sickle  to  the  corn,"  shows  anything  more  than  that 
the  feast  occurred  in  the  season  of  harvest,  though 
the  time  of  its  celebration  was  regulated  not  by  that, 
but  by  the  anniversary  of  the  exodus. 

The  alleged  development  or  degradation  of  the 
feast  is,  therefore,  at  fault  in  every  particular.  The 
feast  was  a  historical  commemoration  from  the  begin- 
ning. It  was  instituted  not  in  Canaan,  but  at  the 
Exodus.     And  the  Passover  is  not  an  impoverished 


202  THE  FEAS  T  LA  WS. 

relic  of  tlie  more  abundant  and  joyous  festivities  of 
which  all  partook  when  their  tables  were  laden  with 
the  annual  sacrifice  of  first-born  cattle. 

One  word  in  conclusion  as  to  these  latter  becoming 
the  legal  perquisites  of  the  priests.  If  this  marks  a 
change,  as  Wellhausen  avers,  it  is  one  in  nowise  de- 
structive of  the  religious  character  of  the  transaction. 
They  were  given  to  Jehovah,  who  claimed  them  as 
his  own,  in  grateful  recognition  of  his  rich  bounty. 
And  whether  he  bestowed  them  upon  the  priests,  his 
ministers,  or  gave  them  back  in  large  part  to  the 
offerers,  makes  no  difference  in  the  spirit  of  piety 
which  prompted  the  consecration.  It  is  a  gross  mis- 
representation, therefore,  to  say  that  what  had  for- 
merly been  "  acts  of  worship,"  were  transformed  into 
"  a  tax  which  is  holy  only  in  name." 

A  difficulty  has  indeed  been  long  felt  in  reconcil- 
ing Deut.  15  :  19,  20,  according  to  which  the  first- 
lings of  cattle  were  to  be  eaten  by  the  owner  before 
the  Lord,  and  Num.  18  :  17,  18,  which  assigns  their 
flesh  to  the  priests.  But  they  may  be  harmonized 
nevertheless,  if  from  the  animals  on  which  he  had  a 
legal  claim  the  priest  considered  himself  bound  to 
supply  a  table  for  the  offerer  and  his  friends.  In  re- 
gard, however,  to  this  or  any  other  obscurity  in  these 
ancient  regulations  the  following  sentence  uttered  by 
Wellhausen*  in  a  different  connection  is  worthy  of 
consideration  :  "  It  is  not  surprising  that  much  is  ob- 
scure to  us,  which  must  have  been  self-evident  to 
contemporaries." 

*  "  Geschichte,"  p.  94.     Prolegomena  (Eng.  Trans.),  p.  91. 


VI. 

THE    PASSOVER. 

(Continued). 


.0^: 


VI. 

THE  PASSOVER— (continued). 

WE  have  examined  two  points  in  which  it  is 
claimed  that  a  gradual  development  is  trace- 
able in  the  feast  laws.  We  now  come  to  a  third,  viz., 
the  time  at  which  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  was 
held.  Here  again  it  is  affirmed  that  great  and  im- 
portant changes  occurred  in  the  course  of  ages,  seri- 
ously affecting  the  nature  of  this  feast.  In  the  oldest 
laws,  viz.,  those  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  Ex.  23, 
and  its  reproduction,  Ex.  34,  the  spring  feast  is  only 
in  general  terms  assigned  to  the  month  Abib,  the 
month  of  green  ears.  Its  time  was  not  fixed  by 
statute,  but  was  dependent  on  the  state  of  the  crop. 
This  was  still  the  case  in  Deuteronomy,  although  ac- 
cording to  some  of  the  critics,  the  advance  was  here 
made  of  fixing  its  duration  as  a  period  of  seven  days. 
Ultimately,  however,  and  as  the  result  of  the  central- 
ization of  worship,  which  made  it  necessary  that  there 
should  be  definite  and  concerted  times  of  pilgrimage, 
it  was  attached  to  given  days  of  the  month.  It  thus 
no  longer  took  its  inspiration  from  those  agricultural 
conditions  with  which  it  was  originally  connected, 
but  was  regulated  by  the  phases  of  the  moon.  This 
gave  it  an  abstract,  stereotyped,  formal  character,  and 
severed  it  so  completely  from  the  hopes  and  fears  of 
the  husbandman  and  the  joys  of  harvest,  that  a  second- 

(205) 


2o6  THE  FASSO  VER. 

ary  festival  was  allowed  and  even  made  obligatory  a 
month  later,  for  those  who  by  reason  of  defilement 
were  unable  to  participate  in  it  at  the  regular  time. 

Hitzig  maintains  that  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread 
was  originally  observed  on  the  first  day  of  the  month 
Abib  as  the  commemoration  of  the  exodus,  but  was 
subsequently  transferred  to  the  middle  of  the  month 
and  extended  to  seven  days.  He  urges  that  the 
words  "  month  Abib,"  Ex.  23  :  15,  34  :  18,  Deut.  16  :  i, 
should  be  rendered  "  the  new  moon  of  Abib."  In 
like  manner  he  translates  Ex.  13:4,  "This  day  came 
ye  out  in  the  new  moon  of  Abib,"  where  the  render- 
ing "  month"  would  not  afford  a  proper  parallel  to 
"day"  at  the  beginning  of  the  verse;  this  conse- 
quently is  claimed  as  a  positive  declaration  that  the 
exodus  occurred,  or  was  believed  to  have  occurred, 
on  the  first  day  of  the  month.  He  draws  a  like  in- 
ference from  Ex.  12:41,  "At  the  end  of  the  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years,  even  the  self-same  day  it  came 
to  pass  that  all  the  hosts  of  the  LORD  went  out  from 
the  land  of  Egypt."  He  argues  from  this  that  the 
day  after  the  expiration  of  the  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  m.ust  have  been  new-year's  day  of  the 
year  following.  "  The  self-same'  day  "  there  referred 
to,  however,  is  shown  by  the  whole  preceding  context 
to  have  been  the  14th  day  of  the  month,  which  is 
spoken  of  and  emphasized  again  and  again,  and  is 
uniformly  represented  as  the  day  of  Israel's  leaving 
Egypt.  Hitzig's  view  is  inconsistent  with  all  the 
statements  as  to  the  time  of  the  exodus,  with  the 
constant  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word  in  question, 
which    never  has  the  sense  of  '  new  moon  '  in  the 


THE  PASSOVER. 


207 


Pentateuch,  but  always  that  of  '  month,'  and  with  the 
fact  that  t^O-prominence  is  accorded  elsewhere  in  the 
ritual  to  the  first  day  of  the  first  month,  not  even  in 
Num.  28,  29,  where  the  beginnings  of  the  months  all 
stand  upon  a  par,  with  the  single  exception  of  the 
first  day  of  the  seventh  month,  which  is  distinguished 
above  the  rest.  It  is  besides  inconsistent  with  the 
terms  of  the  laws  themselves,  to  which  appeal  is  made 
to  establish  it.  In  every  instance  in  which  the  dis- 
puted expression  occurs,  it  is  added,  "  thou  shalt  eat 
unleavened  bread  seven  days."  This  express  decla- 
ration that  the  festival  was  continued  through  seven 
days,  shows  that  it  was  not  in  the  new  moon,  but  in 
the  month  Abib.  And  in  Ex.  23  and  34,  the  words 
*'  as  I  commanded  thee  "  contain  an  express  allusion 
to  the  antecedent  law  in  Ex.  12,  13,  where  the  day  is 
fixed  beyond  peradventure.  Hitzig's  desperate  shift 
to  get  rid  of  this  testimony  by  declaring  that  the 
words  ''  thou  shalt  eat  unleavened  bread  seven  days, 
as  I  commanded  thee,"  are  an  interpolation,  is  not 
only  arbitrary  and  unauthorized,  but  is  after  all  of  no 
avail,  since  the  immediately  following  words,  "in  the 
time  appointed  of  the  month  Abib,"  likewise  allude 
to  the  same  preceding  regulation.  And  how  this  al- 
leged interpolation  came  to  be  thrust  into  the  middle 
of  a  sentence  instead  of  added  at  the  end,  it  might  be 
difficult  to  explain. 

The  allegation  that  unleavened  bread  would  not 
have  been  eaten  for  seven  days  to  commemorate 
Israel's  hasty  flight  from  Egypt,  is  sometimes  aji- 
swered  by  appealing  to  the  fact  that  the  abstinence 
from  leaven  thus  imposed  upon  them  lasted  for  sev* 


2oS  THE  FASSO  VER, 

eral  days,  and  that  the  entire  term  is  here  commem- 
orated.  But,  as  we  have  seen  already,  the  prohibi. 
tion  of  leaven  at  this  feast  did  not  take  its  rise  from 
this  in  itself  trivial  circumstance.  Unleavened  bread 
was  enjoined  because  of  its  symbolical  meaning.  Di- 
rection had  been  given  to  institute  this  festival  before 
the  exodus,  though  as  this  was  intended  for  the  fu- 
ture rather  than  the  present,  the  people  were  at  this 
time  only  bidden  to  use  unleavened  bread  at  the 
Passover  meal.  The  whole  significance  of  the  occur- 
rence and  the  reason  why  it  was  recorded,  is  that  the 
people  were  providentially  restrained  from  partaking 
of  this  symbol  of  corruption  at  that  critical  period ; 
they  were  compelled  to  observe  a  sort  of  feast  of  Un- 
leavened Bread  without  intending  it  or  being  aware 
of  its  institution.  The  extension  of  the  abstinence 
from  leaven  to  seven  days  is  simply  its  emphatic  rep- 
etition during  the  usual  festal  period,  thus  exalting 
it  to  the  dignity  of  a  feast  of  the  first  order. 

This  whimsical  conceit  of  Hitzig  has  found  few,  if 
any,  adherents  beyond  its  originator.  The  majority 
of  critics  on  the  contrary  insist  that  in  the  older  Je- 
hovist  laws,  and  even  in  that  of  Deuteronomy,  the 
name  of  the  month  only  is  given  in  which  the  feast 
was  to  be  held,  but  no  day  fixed  for  its  observance. 
It  was  to  be  in  the  month  Abib,  that  being  the  period 
at  which  barley,  the  earliest  of  the  grains,  began  to 
ripen  ;  but  the  precise  day  is  undetermined,  that  be- 
ing allowed  to  vary  with  the  season.  Whenever  the 
harvest  was  ripe,  each  husbandman  made  his  own 
presentation  of  first-fruits,  and  held  his  annual  re- 
joicing at  some  neighboring  sanctuaiy.     There  was 


THE  PASSO  VER.  209 

thus  a  festal. period  rather  than  one  common  feast,  in 
which  all  participated  unitedly.  The  early  harvest 
in  the  warm  basin  of  the  Jordan  was  separated  by  a 
considerable  interval  from  that  which  was  reaped  on 
the  high  lands  of  Ephraim  or  of  Galilee.  And  each 
was  celebrated  alike  at  the  time  of  its  occurrence. 

But  apart  from  the  fact  already  demonstrated  that 
the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  was  not  properly  a 
harvest  festival  and  its  time  could  not  therefore  have 
been  dependent  on  that  which  it  was  not  designed  to 
celebrate,  this  fluctuating  observance  is  inconsistent 
with  the  explicit  language  of  all  the  laws  relating  to 
the  subject  from  first  to  last.  Ex.  23  and  34  direct 
that  the  feast  should  be  held  "•  in  the  time  appointed 
of  the  month  Abib ;  for  in  it  thou  camest  out  from 
Egypt."  It  was  accordingly  regulated  by  the  anni- 
versary of  the  exodus,  and  must  therefore  have  been 
at  not  a  shifting  but  a  fixed  and  definite  period.  Ex. 
13  :  3,  4,  which  is  also  claimed  as  belonging  to  the 
Jehovist  legislation,  is  similarly  explicit :  "  Remem- 
ber this  day  in  which  ye  came  out  from  Egypt,  .... 
this  day  came  ye  out  in  the  month  Abib."  So,  too, 
Deuteronomy  16,  which  says:  "  Observe  the  month 
Abib  and  keep  the  Passover  unto  the  LORD  thy  God ; 
for  in  the  month  of  Abib  the  LORD  thy  God  brought 
thee  forth  out  of  Egypt  by  night ";  and  further  di- 
rects the  eating  of  unleavened  bread,  "  that  thou 
mayest  remember  the  day  when  thou  camest  forth 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt ";  and  yet  again  enjoins 
the  sacrificing  of  the  Passover,  which  introduced  the 
feast,  ''  at  the  season  that  thou  camest  forth  out  of 
Egypt." 

14 


210  THE  PASSOVER, 

It  is,  moreover,  fatal  to  the  hypothesis  that  Deuter- 
onomy should  describe  the  time  of  the  feast  in  indefi- 
nite terms.  Deuteronomy,  the  critics  claim,  intro- 
duced centralization  of  worship.  Feasts  that  might 
previously  be  celebrated  on  ''  every  threshing  floor," 
Hos.  9  :  I,  or  at  contiguous  sanctuaries  by  each  neigh- 
borhood or  even  separate  household,  must  thence- 
forward be  observed  by  the  people  as  a  whole  at  one 
common  sanctuary.  An  essential  requisite  in  such 
an  arrangement  is  a  fixed  and  definite  time  for  the 
observance,  which  would  be  understood  alike  by  all. 
The  scheme  would  necessarily  be  impracticable  with- 
out it.  As  then  Deuteronomy  plainly  enjoins  such 
common  pilgrimages,  it  must  have  assigned  to  them 
certain  and  universally  intelligible  dates.  The  day 
on  which  it  was  to  be  observed  mu^t  have  bjeen  un-^ 
ambiguously  settled  by  this  reference  to  the  well- 
known  date  of  the  exodus,  even  though  its  number 
in  the  month  is  not  stated.  But  if  this  be  so  in 
Deuteronomy  the  similar  expressions  in  Exodus  must 
also  have  a  determinate  signification.  All  ground  is 
thus  cut  off  for  the  assumption  that  there  was  ever 
any  variation  in  the  time  of  the  feast  whether  from 
year  to  year,  or  in  different  localities  in  the  land. 

In  the  so-called  Elohistic  laws,  which  according  to 
the  new  departure  in  criticism  are  to  be  reckoned 
post-exilic,  definite  dates  are  gijz£j;i.  Here,  however, 
George  and  Wcllhauscn  tell  us  that  they  find  evi- 
dence of  still  further  development.  George '  says 
that  in  Ex.  12  :  18,  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread 
begins  on  the  fourteenth  day  at  even,  and  extends 
'  "  Die  altercn  Jiidischen  Fcste  "  p.  243  f. 


THE  PASSOVER.  211 

to  the  one  and  twentieth  day  at  even,  with  which 
Ezek.  45  :  21  agrees.  But  in  Lev.  23  :  5,  6,  and  Num. 
28  :  i6,_i7,_the  Passover  is  observed  on  the  fourteenth 
day  at  even,  and  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  does 
not  commence  until  the  fifteenth,  from  which  time 
it  extends  seven  days;  thus  making  the  continuance 
of  the  whole  eight  days  instead  of  seven.  This  re- 
sultedj  as  he  informs  us,  from  the  change  which  then 
took  place  in  the  diurnal  mode  of  reckoning.  In- 
stead of  estimating  the  day  as  formerly  from  the 
evening,  they  began  with  the  morning.  The  evening 
of  the  fourteenth,  on  which  the  paschal  meal  was 
eaten,  was  too  important  to  be  abandoned  ;  and  con- 
sequently it  imparted  its  sacredness  to  the  entire  day 
to  which  it  belonged.  And  hence  Josephus '  says 
that  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  continues  seven 
days  when  the  Passover  is  not  included,  but  includ. 
ing  the  Passover  it  is  a  feast  of  eight  days. 

Wellhausen^  also  insists  upon  a  similar  prolonga 
tion  of  the  feast,  not^  however,  in  the  Elohist  laws 
compared  with  one  another,  but  compared  with  Deu- 
teronomy. In  Deut.  16:4,  8,  he  says  that  the  even- 
ing of  the  Passover  is  reckoned  the  first  day  of  the 
f^s^aL_we£k,  which  is  not  the  case  in  Lev.  23  : 6, 
Num.  28:17,  Ex.  12:18,  where  the  feast  of  Un- 
leavened Bread  begins  on  the  fifteenth  and  ends  with 
the  twenty-first.  A  day  is  thus  added  to  the  feast, 
and  that  not  an  ordinary  day,  but  one  of  special 
solemnity,  this  being  the  character  which  attached  to 
the  first  day  of  the  festal  week  ;  and  this  is  further. 

*  "Antiquities,"  iii.,  10,  5,  and  ii.,  15,  i. 

*  "  Geschichte,"  p.  107  f.     Prolegomena  (Eng.  Trans.),  p.  104. 


212  THE  PASSOVER. 

more  the  day  immediately  following  the  Passover 
on  which  Deut.  \6\j  allowed  the  pilgrims  to  return 
home. 

But  these  critics  merely  succeed  in  showing  their 
eagerness  to  create  a  difficulty  where  none  whatever 
exists.  The  circumstance,  that  they  are  not  even 
agreed  where  the  difficulty  is,  is^omewhat  daniagmg  at 
the  outset  tojJieJmpression  of  its  formidable  charac- 
ter, which  might  otherwise  have  been  made  upon  us. 
Exodus  says  that  unleavened  bread  is  to  be  eaten 
from  the  fourteenth  at  even  for  seven  days,  until  the 
twenty-first  at  even.  Leviticus  and  Numbers  say 
that  Passover  is  to  be  observed  on  the  evening  of  the 
fourteenth,  but  that  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread 
properly  begins  with  the  morning  of  the  fifteenth  and 
lasts  seven  days ;  it  will  thus  extend  precisely  as  be- 
fore to  the  close  of  the  twenty-first.  And  it  is  also 
perfectly  easy  to  see  how  Josephus  coukj  under  these 
circumstances  call  _the  feast  one  of  eight  days,  inas- 
much as  it  covers  parts  of  eight  different  days,  if 
these  be  reckoned  to  begin  with  the  morning,  whereas 
in  strictness  it  lasts  but  seven  days,  counting  from 
evening  to  evening,  comp.  Mat.  26 :  17.  If  I  speak  of 
one  o'clock  at  night,  or  one  o'clock  in  the  morning,  I 
would  be  understood  to  mean  precisely  the  same 
point  of  time,  only  in  the  one  case  it  would  be  reck- 
oned as  if  it  were  attached  to  the  day  before,  and  in 
the  other  case  to  the  day  after.  And  if  I  were  to 
arrive  at  Boston  on  one  day  at  noon  and  leave  the 
next  day  at  the  same  hour,  I  might  say  that  I  had 
been  there  one  day,  which  would  be  measuring  the 
interval  precisely,  or  that  I  had  been  there  two  days, 


THE  PASSOVER,  313 

which  though  somewhat  inexact  would  be  readily  un- 
derstood. I  believe  that  no  critic  has  ever  found  a 
discrepancy  between  Gen.  17  :  12,  which  requires  a 
child  to  be  circumcised  when  he  is  eight  days  old, 
and  Lev.  12:3,  which  appoints  it_uppn  the  eighth 
day,  though  by  rigid  calculation  he  would  then  be 
but  seven  days  old.  All  are  familiar  with  instances 
in  the  New  Testament  of  this  popular  mode  of  reck- 
oning among  the  Hebrews,  as  the  three  days  of 
Christ's  abode  in  the  grave,  and  eight  days  used  to 
denote  a  week,  John  20 :  26,  Luke  9 :  28,  comp. 
Mat.  17  :  I,  Mark  9:2;  and  some  older  people  than 
children  have  been  puzzled  by  the  inquiry  whether 
the  year  1800  is  the  last  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
or  the  first  of  the  nineteenth. 

Wellhausen  acted  discreetly,  therefore,  in  retreating 
from  the  position  taken  up  by  George  and  in  owning 
that  the  passages  which  the  latter  sought  to  set  at 
variance  are  really  harmonious.  But  his  own  entrench- 
ments are  not  a  whit  stronger.  He  says  that  "the 
first  feast  day  in  Deuteronomy  is  the  day  on  the 
evening  of  which  the  Passover  falls,  and  it  is  followed 
not  by  seven,  but  by  six  days,  whereas  in  the  Priest 
Code  the  observance  extends  from  the  fourteenth 
to  the  twenty-first  of  the  month,  Ex.  12:  18."  This 
is  certainly  a  most  extraordinary  comment.  Deut. 
16  :  2  ff.  enjoins  the  eating  of  unleavened  bread  seven 
days,  then  speaks  of  the  Passover  meal  and  adds  : 
"  Six  days  shalt  thou  eat  unleavened  bread  ;  and  on 
the  seventh  day  shall  be  an  Ji"i;^3?  (a  solemn  assem- 
bly) to  the  Lord  thy  God."  From  this  he  infers,  if 
his  words  have  any  meaning,  that  unleavened  bread 


1 14  ^^^  PASSO  VER. 

was  not  eaten  on  the  seventh  day ;  its  use  terminated 
with  the  sixth,  and  the  additional  day  requisite  to 
make  up  the  full  number  must  be  that  of  the  Pass- 
over which  preceded.  Imagine  a  father  writing  to 
his  absent  son :  "  My  boy,  we  wish  you  at  home.  You 
may  leave  your  city  restaurant  and  take  your  meals 
with  us  for  the  next  seven  days.  We  shall  have 
something  good  to  eat  for  six  days  and  the  seventh 
will  be  Thanksgiving  day."  Would  any  one  but  a 
German  critic  imagine  that  the  old  gentleman  meant 
to  say  that  on  Thanksgiving  day  there  would  be  noth- 
ing good  to  eat  ?  Or  would  any  one  else  have  ever 
dreamed  that  on  the  seventh,  which  was  one  of  the 
two  great  days  of  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,  un- 
leavened bread  was  not  to  be  eaten  ?  The  term  Jri^J? 
(solemn  assembly)  here  applied  to  the  last  day  of  Un- 
leavened Bread  is  the  same  that  in  Lev.  23  :  36,  and 
Num.  28 :  35  is  used  of  the  day  succeeding  the  feast 
of  Tabernacles,  which  concludes  the  entire  festal  series 
of  the  year.  But  there  is  nothing  in  the  etymology  or 
use  of  the  word  to  justify  the  inference  that  it  is  a 
day  additional  to  the  proper  festival  in  this  instance 
where  the  contrary  is  expressly  declared. 

The  permission  given  Deut.  16:7,  ''Thou  shalt 
turn  in  the  morning  (after  the  Passover)  and  go  unto 
thy  tents,"  has  been  explained'  to  mean  after  the  en- 
tire feast  of  seven  days  is  ended  ;  but  the  immediate 
connection  appears  to  relate  to  the  paschal  meal 
proper  and  not  to  all  the  Passover  offerings.  Riehm' 
insists  that  the  intention  can  not  possibly  be  to  allow 

'  So  by  Gerhard,  quoted  by  Riehm. 

•  "  Die  Gesetzgebung  Mosis  im  Lande  Moab,"  p.  51. 


THE  PASSOVER.  21 5 

the  pilgrims  to  return  home  on  the  morning  after  the 
paschal  lamb  was  eaten,  and  thus  absent  themselves 
from  the  solemn  assembly  ordained  for  the  seventh 
day.  He  consequently  interprets  it  of  returning  not 
to  their  homes,  but  to  their  lodgings  in  the  city.  But 
the  phrase  "go  unto  thy  tents"  need  not  refer  to  act- 
ual tents  or  temporary  structures.  It  is  proverbially 
used  of  a  return  home  even  with  reference  to  solid 
and  permanent  abodes,  i  Kin.  12 :  16,  2  Chron.  10: 16. 
The  Passover,  Deut.  16:7,  was  to  be  eaten  in  the 
place  which  the  LORD  shall  choose,  not  necessarily 
in  the  court  of  the  sanctuary,  which  could  not  contain 
the  assembled  multitudes ;  but  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
sanctuary  each  family  partook  of  this  sacred  meal  in 
its  own  separate  apartment. 

Dillmann  finds  in  this  permission  to  pilgrims  to  re- 
turn to  their  homes  indications  of  a  new  stage  in  the 
history  of  the  ordinance.  In  Ex.  13:6  the  seventh 
day  of  Unleavened  Bread  is  declared  to  be  a  feast  to 
the  Lord  :  from  which  he  infers  that  at  the  time  rep- 
resented by  that  law  the  Passover  was  observed  by 
each  family  at  home  as  a  domestic  sacrifice,  as  it  had 
been  in  Egypt ;  and  that  later  in  the  festal  week  a 
pilgrimage  was  made  to  the  sanctuary  so  as  to  spend 
the  seventh  day  there.  Deuteronomy,  however,  in- 
troduced a  change  by  requiring  the  Passover  to  be 
eaten  at  the  sanctuary;  but  in  order  that  the  pilgrims 
might  not  be  obliged  to  absent  themselves  from  home 
longer  than  before,  they  were  suffered  to  leave  when 
the  Passover  was  ended,  and  were  thus  relieved  from 
attendance  at  the  solemn  assembly  held  on  the  seventh 
day.     All  that  is  peculiar  to  Dr.  Dillmaiin's  view  is 


2l6  THE  PASSOVER, 

drawn  from  his  own  imagination  and  is  not  found  in 
the  text.  The  utmost  that  can  be  said  of  it  is  that 
it  would  be  consistent  with  the  language  of  Ex.  13 : 6 
if  this  verse  were  isolated  from  all  others  bearing  on 
the  same  subject.  But  it  is  not  required  by  that 
verse,  and  there  is  nothing  there  or  elsewhere  to  sug- 
gest it.  "  The  seventh  day  shall  be  a  feast  unto  the 
Lord  "  certainly  does  not  mean  that  the  pilgrimage 
was  to  be  made  on  that  day,  but  that  it  was  to  be 
observed  at  the  sanctuary  with  the  special  services 
and  ceremonies  usual  at  pilgrimage  feasts.  One  of 
the  most  marked  of  these  was  a  "holy  convocation" 
or  "solemn  assembly";  and  as  this  is  particularly  no- 
ted in  other  passages  as  belonging  to  this  day,  it  is 
doubtless  intended  by  the  expression  before  us ;  and 
the  great  body  of"  commentators  have  so  understood 
it.  When  the  pilgrims  were  to  arrive  at  the  sanctuary, 
or  how  long  they  were  to  remain,  this  passage  does 
not  inform  us.  Deuteronomy  supplies  this  informa- 
tion. They  must  be  present  at  the  Passover,  which 
was  the  keystone  of  the  entire  festival,  but  need  not 
remain  during  the  rest  of  the  seven  days. 

It  was  doubtless  in  consideration  of  the  exigencies 
of  the  harvest  season  that  this  leave  was  granted. 
The  pilgrims  might  or  might  not  avail  themselves  of 
it.  Devotion  would  prompt  them  to  remain  during 
the  entire  sacred  term.  But  attendance  at  the  holy 
convocations  at  the  sanctuary  was  not  in  every  case 
obligatory  on  those  who  resided  at  a  distance.  As 
they  were  not  required  to  be  present  on  the  seventh 
day,  neither  were  they  on  the  first  beyond  attendance 
at  the  Passover  in  the  evening  with  which  it  began. 


THE  PASSO  VER. 


217 


There  is  no  inconsistency,  therefore,  in  their  being 
allowed  to  return  home  on  the  first  day  of  Unleavened 
Bread,  although  a  holy  convocation  was  then  held ; 
and  it  involved  no  violation  of  the  sacredness  of  the 
day,  which  was  not  observed  with  the  strictness  of 
the  weekly  Sabbath.  That  the  first  day  is  not  in  ex- 
press terms  named  as  a  day  of  holy  convocation  in 
Ex.  13  or  Deut.  16,  we  have  before  seen,  involves  no 
discrepancy  with  Ex.  12  :  16,  Lev.  23  :  7,  8,  Num.  28  : 
18,  25.  Supreme  stress  is  clearly  laid  upon  the  initial 
day  as  the  one  to  be  commemorated  and  the  pivotal 
point  of  the  entire  celebration,  the  ground  and  basis 
of  the  whole  ;  and  as  Dillmann  ^  justly  says  :  "  That 
the  first  also  was  a  chief  day,  is  self-evident." 

It  is  further  claimed  that  the  ritual  of  the  Passover 
underwent  changes  in  the  course  of  time.  The  com- 
mon opinion  has  been  that  several  of  the  rites  pre- 
scribed on  its  first  observance  in  Egypt  were  peculiar 
to  that  occasion,  and  were  due  only  to  the  special  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case.  The  slaying  of  the  lamb  by 
the  head  of  each  family  at  his  own  house,  the  sprint 
ling  of  the  door-posts  and  lintels,  and  probably  also 
the  posture  in  which  they  partook  of  the  lamb,  with 
their  loins  girded,  their  shoes  on  their  feet  and  their 
staff  in  their  hand,  were  of  this  temporary  character. 
They  never  recur  again.  God  had  not  yet  estab- 
lished his  sanctuary  in  the  midst  of  his  people,  and 
the  Aaronic  priesthood  was  not  yet  instituted.  At  a 
later  time  the  Passover  followed  the  usages  of  other 
sacrifices;  the  animal  was  slain  at  the  altar;  and  the 
priests  sprinkled  the  blood,  2  Chron.  30:  16  f.,  35  :  Ii^ 
*  "  Die  Biicher  Exodus  und  Leviticus,"  p.  581. 


2 1 8  THE  PASSO  VER. 

Dillmann  very  needlessly  presses  the  letter  of  Ex. 
12:24  in  reference  not  merely  to  the  ordinance  as 
such,  but  to  all  the  details  before  described.  The 
complete  change  of  circumstances  necessarily  led  to 
a  corresponding  modification  in  the  mode  of  observ- 
ance. 

Wellhausen  '  finds  a  significant  change  in  the  direc- 
tions respecting  the  flesh  of  the  lamb.  The  ancient, 
and  even  in  later  times,  the  general  custom,  he  says, 
was  to  boil  meat.  The  word  5i2;;n  (boil)  occurs  very 
frequently,  but  nb^  (roast)  is  comparatively  rare. 
The  flesh  of  sacrifices  was  always  boiled.  But  the 
better  class  of  people  came  to  prefer  their  meat 
roasted.  And  so  the  sons  of  Eli  demanded  of  the 
worshippers,  "  Give  flesh  to  roast  for  the  priest ;  for 
he  will  not  have  sodden  flesh  of  thee,  but  raw,"  i  Sam. 
2:15.  Now  in  Deut.  16:  7,  they  were  not  bidden  to 
"  roast  "  it,  as  it  is  rendered  in  the  authorized  version. 
The  word  used  is  b'j^ln,  the  same  that  is  employed, 
Ex.  12  19,  in  the  prohibition,  "  not  sodden  at  all  with 
water."  According  to  the  former  passage  it  was  to 
be  boiled  ;  according  to  the  latter  it  must  not  be 
boiled,  but  roasted.  Boiling  had  passed  out  of  fashion, 
and  roasting  had  come  into  vogue.  But  unfortunate- 
ly for  this  view  of  the  case,  2  Chron.  35  :  13  also  uses 
this  very  word  btlJ!^  of  the  preparation  of  the  Pass- 
over, though  Chronicles  is  always  represented  as  such 
a  stickler  for  the  Priest  Code,  in  which  roasting  was  so 
rigorously  prescribed.  It  uses  this  word,  moreover, 
both  of  roasting  and  of  boiling,  uniting  in  the  same 
sentence  itDi  with  fire,  and  ^i^^lH   '^"^  P^^^s,  showing 

'  "  Geschichte,"  p.  70.     Prolegomena  (l"ng.  Trans.),  p.  68. 


THE  PASSOVER. 


219 


that  the  word  has  neither  the  specific  sense  of  boil- 
ing or  roasting,  but  the  general  meaning  '■'•  to  cook  " 
in  any  mode.  Exodus  gives  specific  directions  that 
the  lamb  must  not  be  boiled,  but  roasted.  Deuter- 
onomy simply  speaks  of  cooking  it,  without  particular- 
izing the  mode,  assuming  that  the  proper  style  of 
preparation  was  known,  and  that  no  further  explana- 
tion was  necessary. 

It  is  further  charged  that  the  Levitical  law  alters 
the  whole  character  of  the  festal  celebrations  by  the 
substitution  of  public  sacrifices  for  those  which  had 
previously  been  offered  on  individual  account.  Thus 
Wellhausen  :'  ''  The  celebration  proper  is  exhausted 
in  prescribed  public  sacrifices.  There  were  offered 
day  by  day  at  the  Passover,  besides  the  continual 
burnt-offering,  two  bullocks,  one  ram,  seven  lambs  as 
a  burnt-offering,  and  a  he-goat  as  a  sin-offering.  Ad- 
ditional free-will  offerings  of  individuals  are  not  ex- 
cluded, but  they  are  subordinate.  Elsewhere  both  in 
the  older  practice,  i  Sam.  i  :4ff.,  and  in  the  law,  Ex. 
23  :  t8,  the  feast-offering  was  always  associated  with 
a  meal,  and  was  hence  a  private  sacrifice.  Deuteron- 
omy directs  that  the  poor  and  needy  classes  should 
be  invited  to  these  sacrificial  entertainments.  This 
is  an  advance  which  stands  much  nearer  the  old  sacri- 
ficial idea  of  communion  between  God  and  men  than 
those  solitary  general  church  sacrifices." 

The  transition  here  affirmed  from  private  to  public 
sacrifices  is  altogether  imaginary.  Both  subsisted 
side  by  side  from  the  beginning  to  the  end.  The  ap- 
parent development  on  which  Wellhausen  insists,  is 

1  "  Geschichte,"  p.  102.     Prolegomena  (Eng.  Trans  ),  p.  99. 


220  THE  PASSOVER. 

simply  created  by  the  critical  assumption  which  rends 
asunder  laws,  that  form  related  parts  of  one  connected 
system  of  legislation.  Deuteronomy  does  not  repeat 
the  ritual  of  Leviticus  and  Numbers,  for  that  had 
been  detailed  sufficiently  in  its  proper  place.  It 
steadfastly  adheres  to  its  own  purpose  and  aim.  Well- 
hausen  himself  says,  "  In  Deuteronomy  almost 
everything  is  left  to  existing  usage,  and  only  the  one 
main  matter  insisted  on,  that  divine  worship,  and  con- 
sequently the  feasts  too,  must  be  celebrated  only  in 
Jerusalem."  With  this  view  of  the  design  of  the 
book  no  presumption  arises  against  the  existence  of 
the  scheme  of  festal  offerings  enjoined  in  Num.  28, 
that  no  allusion  is  made  to  it  in  Deuteronomy. 
There  was  no  occasion  to  make  such  allusion.  This 
book  concerns  itself  with  the  offerings  which  the 
people  themselves  were  to  bring  for  themselves  as  in- 
dividuals and  as  families  rather  than  with  those  which 
the  priests  were  to  offer  in  the  name  of  the  congre- 
gation. And  that  Leviticus  and  Numbers  do  not 
exclude  the  private  offerings  of  the  people  is  explicitly 
declared.  Num.  29 :  39  :  "  These  things  ye  shall  do 
unto  the  LORD  in  your  set  feasts  beside  your  vows 
and  your  free-will  offerings,  for  your  burnt-offerings 
and  for  your  meat-offerings,  and  for  your  drink-offer- 
ings, and  for  your  peace-offerings":  and  again  in 
similar  terms.  Lev.  23  :  38.  This  too  is  somewhat  un- 
graciously admitted  by  Wellhausen,  his  admission 
being  qualified  by  the  gratuitous  assertion  that  these 
latter  are  subordinate  to  the  public  sacrifices.  There 
is  no  subordination  about  it.  The  one  was  a  matter 
'  "  Geschichte  Israels,"  p.  94.    Prolegomena  (Eng.  Trans.),  p.  91. 


THE  PASSO  VER.  22 1 

of  statute,  and  full  specifications  are  consequently 
given.  The  other  was  wholly  left  to  the  devout  feel- 
ings of  the  offerer,  upon  which  no  restriction  what- 
ever was  laid.  The  spontaneous  piety  which  he 
represents  as  characteristic  of  the  early  stages  of  Is- 
rael's religion  received  no  check  from  the  ritual  legis- 
lation, which  afforded  it  free  vent  at  all  times.  The 
public  offerings  did  not  come  in  subsequently  to 
crowd  out  those  that  had  formerly  been  presented  by 
individuals.  They  were  the  framework  and  support 
of  the  edifice  of  Israel's  worship,  which  was  filled  in, 
completed  and  beautified,  made  habitable  and  pre- 
cious in  the  eyes  of  the  LORD  by  the  numberless  acts 
of  piety  and  devotion  of  the  thronging  worshippers. 

There  is  still  one  other  respect  in  which  the  critics 
claim  to  be  able  to  trace  a  development  in  the  feasts, 
viz.,  the  place  of  their  celebration.  The  earlier  laws, 
it  is  held,  bind  them  to  no  one  locality.  They  were 
celebrated  everywhere.  Each  neighborhood  had  its 
shrine  and  its  annual  festivities.  The  larger  places 
doubtless  had  more  showy  sanctuaries,  and  they  at- 
tracted larger  crowds  of  pilgrims  and  from  remoter 
parts.  Some  sanctuaries  may  have  been  frequented 
more  at  one  season,  others  at  another.  The  worship- 
per thus  resorted  to  the  sanctuary  whenever  the 
occasion  arose  that  called  forth  his  homage.  The 
first  sheaf  gathered  from  his  ground  could  be  offered 
to  the  Lord  as  soon  as  it  was  reaped,  and  immediate 
expression  could  be  given  to  the  gratitude  which  the 
sense  of  God's  bounty  awakened  within  him. 

But  Deuteronomy  brought  with  it  a  momentous 
change.     Abuses  had  sprung  up  at  the  local  sanctu^ 


222  THE  PASSOVER, 

aries  which  brought  them  into  disrepute,  and  the 
prophetic  party  resolved  upon  the  centraHzation  of 
worship  as  the  only  available  remedy.  They  gave 
utterance  to  their  ideas  in  the  Deuteronomic  code, 
by  which  they  sought  to  suppress  all  sacrificial  wor- 
ship except  at  one  central  sanctuary.  It  was  therein 
ordained  that  all  sacrifices  and  all  feasts  should  thence- 
forth be  limited  to  the  place  that  the  LORD  should 
choose,  by  which  is  plainly  meant  the  temple  at  Je- 
rusalem. The  feasts  thus  removed  to  a  distance  from 
the  residences  of  the  people,  were  necessarily  sepa- 
rated from  their  natural  occasions  and  became  formal, 
stereotyped  and  statutory  ordinances  instead  of  free 
and  joyous  expressions  of  the  religious  life,  elicited 
by  the  fresh  experience  of  God's  ever-recurring 
bounty.  The  iteration  with  which  Deut.  i6  insists 
upon  sacrificing  the  Passover  in  the  place  which  the 
Lord  should  choose  to  place  his  name  there,  shows 
it  to  be  a  new  requirement  which  it  was  apprehended 
that  it  would  be  difficult  to  enforce.  In  Leviticus 
and  Numbers,  on  the  other  hand,  no  further  solicitude 
was  felt  on  this  subject.  Not  a  word  is  said  respect- 
ing the  place  of  observance.  It  is  taken  for  granted 
that  the  feasts  can  be  observed  only  at  the  sacred 
tabernacle.  This  seemed  too  obvious  to  call  for  re- 
mark or  injunction.  These  laws  accordingly  emanate 
from  a  period  when  the  struggle  represented  in  Deu- 
teronomy was  at  an  end,  and  had  terminated  in  favor 
of  the  central  sanctuary.  All  local  sanctuaries  had 
been  suppressed,  or  the  attachment  of  the  people  to 
them  had  been  overcome,  and  the  temple  in  Jerusa- 
lem had  no  longer  a  rival. 


THE  PASSOVER,  223 

But  the  alleged  diversity  of  laws  on  this  subject 
has  no  existence.  The  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  in 
all  its  parts  allows  but  one  sanctuary.  The  Book  of  the 
Covenant,  Ex.  23  :  19,  and  its  reproduction,  34 :  26,  or- 
dain that  the  first  of  the  first-fruits  should  be  brought 
''into  the  house  of  the  LORD  thy  God,"  one  definite 
place.  And  20  :  24,  to  which  the  critics  so  confidently 
appeal  as  sanctioning  a  multiplicity  of  altars,  does  not 
contemplate  contemporaneous  rival  sanctuaries,  but 
only  successive  spots  at  which  God  would  reveal  him- 
self to  his  people,  while  they  were  still  without  a  set- 
tled habitation.  When  the  covenant  had  been  rati- 
fied, and  God  condescended  to  take  up  his  abode  in 
the  midst  of  his  people,  the  tabernacle  was  thencefor- 
ward the  only  place  of  acceptable  sacrificial  worship ; 
and  the  Levitical  code  bases  itself  upon  this  idea.  In 
the  great  lawgiver's  final  address  to  the  people,  he 
speaks  no  longer  in  the  brief  and  formal  language  of 
a  statute,  but  in  that  of  earnest  exhortation  and  ad- 
monition, warning  them  of  the  danger  and  the  sin  of 
defection  from  Jehovah,  and  urging  them  to  strict 
and  faithful  adherence  to  the  laws  which  he  had  given. 
Foreseeing  the  dangers  that  would  arise  from  their  be- 
ing ensnared  into  attendance  at  the  idolatrous  temples 
of  the  Canaanites,  he  directs  his  utmost  urgency  to  this 
source  of  their  most  immediate  peril,  reiterating  his 
cautions  upon  this  point  again  and  again,  and  espe- 
cially enjoining  it  upon  them  to  present  all  their  sacri- 
fices and  observe  all  their  feasts  at  the  place  which 
the  Lord  would  choose,  after  he  had  given  them 
rest  in  the  land  which  they  were  going  in  to  possess. 
There   is   thus   perfect  harmony  throughout   all  the 


2  24  THE  PAS  SO  VER. 

laws  on  this  subject ;  the  same  spirit  pervades  the 
whole  ;  and  there  is  but  one  uniform  requirement. 

Finally,  the  critics  make  their  appeal  to  the  history. 
There,  we  are  told,  the  same_successive  stages  which 
they  find  indicated.. in  tlie_Jaws,  can  be  recognized 
afresh  in  the  recorded  development  of  these  institu- 
tions, as  set  forth  in  the  historical  books  and  the 
books  of  the  prophets.  This,  it  is  claimed,  supplies 
the  ultimate  and  Hprij;ivp  test,  dernqn^trating  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  results  arrived  at  by  the  investigation 
of  the  laws,  inasmuch  as  these  are  seen  to  match  pre- 
cisely with  the  condition  of  things  exhibited  in  the 
actual  life  of  the  people  at  distinct  and  determinate 
epochs. 

In  Wellhausen's  review  of  the  history,  he  has  much 
to  say  of  the  gradual  rise_qf  feasts  from  the  presenta- 
tion of,  first-fruits,  and  of  their  annual  observance  at 
neighborhood  sanctuaries,  and  the  growth  of  larger 
sanctuaries  toward  the  close  of  the  period  of  the 
judgeSj.and  of  the  people  resorting  at  different  seasons 
to  different^_sanctuaries,  and  of  the  increasing  in- 
fluence of  great  royal  temples ;  but  the  whole  thing  is 
spun  out  of  his  own  brain.  It  is  as  purely  fictitious 
as  an  astronomical  map  would  be  of  the  other  side 
of  the  moon.  The  only  pretence  of  any  historical 
evidence  is  found  in  a  jumble  of  defections  from  the 
worship  of  Jehovah,  which  historians  and  prophets 
combine  to  denounce  as  such,  but  which  our  critic 
adduces  as  the  genuine  outgrowth  of  Israel's  religion. 
He  might  as  well  gather  the  sentiments  and  practices 
of  confessed  outlaws  and  of  vicious  classes,  and  deduce 
from  these  the   recognized  statutes  or  the  prevailing 


THE  PASSOVER,  22^ 

standard  of  public  morality  at  different  periods  of  a 
nation's  history. 

But  even  thus  his  testimonies  are  few  and  far  be- 
tween. A  pjigan  festival  at  Shechem^  mentioned  in 
the  book  of  Judges,  9 :  27,  and  Leroboam's  idolatrous 
feast  at  Bethel,  established  in  open  and  avowed  oppo- 
sition to  the  worship  at  Jerusalem,  of  which  we  learn 
in  I  Kin.  12:32,  a  passage  which,  from  his  point  of 
view,  he  pronounces  unreliable,  are  positively  the 
only  mstances  which  he  is  able  to  adduce  from 
the  entire  range  of  the  historical  books  to^qnfirm  his 
confidently  reiterated  assertions  that  religious  festi- 
vals were  held  elsewhere  than  at  one  legitimate  sanc- 
tuary. If  now  his  interpretation  of  the  facts  is  cor- 
rect, and  the  annual  feasts  were  as  freely  observed, 
as  he  imagines,  at  numerous  sacred  localities,  and  yet 
this  fact  nowhere  comes  out  in  the  history,  \^hat  are. 
"W£_-t0L  think  of  the  critical  principle  which  underlies 
all  his  reasoning  that  the  silence  of  a  historian  x& 
specting  an  occurrence  discredits  its  reality?  Xf 
throughout  every  period  of  the  history  down  to  the 
reign  of  Josiah,  these  annual  festivities  were  held  at 
so  many  distinct  places  without  any  trace  of  it  being 
preserved  in  any  one  of  the  historical  books,  why 
should  the  absence  of  any  more  explicit  statements 
than  we  possess  in  these  same  histories  respecting  the 
observance  of  the  Levitical  ritual  in  its  details  be 
urged  in  proof  of  its  non-existence  ? 

In  the  paucity  of  authorities  the  degraded  festivals 

denounced  by  Hosea  as_ieasts  of  Baal  and  of  which 

Amos    speaks   with    loathing    and    a.bhorrence,    are 

eagerly  caught  up  as  evidences.     These  excrescences 

15 


226  THE  PASSO  VER. 

which  the  prophets  would  pare  away,  these  nuisa.ices 
which  they  would  abate,  are  held  up  before  us  by  the 
critics  not  in  their  contrast  with  the  purer  worship 
maintained  at  the  seat  of  the  divine  abode,  which 
they  attest  and  illustrate  as  spurious  coin  does  the 
genuine  and  unadulterated,  but  as  forms  and  manifes- 
tations of  the  religion  of  Jehovah.  These  aberrations 
from  the  ancient  faith  and  from  the  pure  worship  of 
their  fathers,  of  which  Hosea  and  Amos  speak  in 
terms  of  unmitigated  rebuke  and  indignation,  afford 
the  only  proof  that  is  forthcoming,  that  the  Mosaic 
law,  restricting  the  annual  festivals  to  the  one  sanc- 
tuary where  God  had  recorded  his  name,  was  not  in 
existence.  Not  one  passage  can  be  adduced  from 
the  entire  Old  Testament  to  show  that  the  Passover, 
or  either  of  the  other  annual  feasts  or  any  national 
anniversary  whatever  was  celebrated  anywhere  but  at 
Shiloh  or  Jerusalem. 

The  allusions  to  the  annual  festivals  by  Isaiah  are 
scanty  and  incidental  and  yet  sufficient  to  show  their 
existence  in  his  time.  The  regular  festive  cycle  is, 
plainly  referred  to,  Isa.  29  :  i,  which  should  be  trans- 
lated, ''Add  ye  year  to  year  ;  let  the  feasts  run  their 
round."  In  I  :  13  he  brings  together  quite  a  number 
of  technical  terms  connected  with  festive  celebrations, 
some  of  which  are  peculiar  to  the  Levitical  law  which 
the  critics  would  persuade  us  is  post-exilic  ;  thus 
"  the  calling  of  assemblies,"  or  holy  convocation,  as 
Ex.  12:16,  Lev.  23,  Num.  2S  ;  spoken  of  again,  4  :  5, 
in  connection  with  Mount  Zion  ;  "  the  solernn  meet- 
ing "or  solemn  assembly,  as  Lev.  23  :  36,  Num.  29 :  35,  • 
Deut.  i6-:.8  ;  spoken  of  likewise  by  his  older  contem- 


THE  PASSO  VER,  22; 

porary,  Joel  i  :  14,  2:15,  who  connects  it  with  Zion, 
and  its  idolatrous  counterpart  in  the  kingdom  of 
Israel  is  referred  to  2  Kin.  10:  20,  Amos  5  :  21,  and 
**the_appointed_ feasts."  Isaiah  calls  Zion,  33:20, 
"  the  city  of  ojur  soleninities,"  using  here,  as  in  the 
expression  last  cited,  the  word  employed  in  Lev.  23 
to  denote  both  the  three  pilgrimage  feasts  and  the 
other  annual  festivals.  And  he  affords  us  a  glimpse 
of  the  impressive  spectacle  presented  on  these  sacred 
occasions  in  30 :  2q,  which  should  be  translated, 
*'  Your  song  shall  be  as  in  the  night  of  consecrating 
a  feast,  as  when  one  goeth  with  a  pipe  to  come  into 
the  mountain  of  Jehovah."  This  solemn  march  in 
festive  procession  with  joyful  music  to  the  temple 
has  its  counterpart  in  Ps.  42  : 4,  where  the  Psalmist 
says:  "I  passed  by  with  the  throng,  and  marched 
with  them  to  the  house  of  God  with  the  voice  of  joy 
and  praise,  a  multitude  keeping  the  feast."  Gram- 
berg_^'  is  in  doubt  whether  Isaiah  here  alludes  to  the 
Passover,  since  Exodus  says  nothing  of  glad  songs 
accompanied  by  the  flute,  and  whether  he  has  not 
rather  in  mind  the  autumn  feast  of  ingathering,  which 
was  celebrated  in  later  times  by  illuminations  and 
glad  festivities  like  the  Dionysia.  or  feastsj)f  Bacchus. 
WeUJiaiisen  correctly  identifies  the  feast  here  spoken 
of  with  what  he  and  Dillmann  translate  '*  the  night 
of  watching,"  Ex.  j„2_:-43yJ)ut  the  majority  of  com- 
mentators "the  night  of  observance"  or  celebration, 
that  is  to  say,  the  feast  observed  at  night,  the  Pass- 
over. And  though  Isaiah  does  not  actually  use  the 
name,  he  unmistakably  alludes  to  it  a  few  verses 
'  "  Religionsideen,"  p.  284. 


228  THE  PASSO  VER. 

later,  31  :  5,  "The  LORD  of  hosts  will  defend  Jerusa« 
lem  ;  .  .  .  .  passing  over  he  will  preserve  it,"  which 
likewise  shows  the  meaning  that  he  attached  to  the 
name  of  the  festival ;    whence  it   may  fairly  be  in- 
ferred that  it  was  to  him  not  a  harvest  feast,  but  a 
historical    commemoration    of    a   great    deliveraac£^ 
Wellhausen  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  is  a 
prophet  of  Jerusalem  who  thus  speaks  of  the  festal 
cycle,  and  who  ties  the  observance  of  the  feasts  to 
Zion.     But  we  look  in  vain  for  testimony  of  a  dif- 
ferent  nature  from  any  other  quarter.     There  is  n,oLja_ 
word  in  any  writing  in  the  Old  Testament  to  intimate 
that  they  ever  were  observed  in  whole  or  in  part. in _ 
any  other   locality  than    that   of   the  tabernacle   or 
temple. 

The  first  celebration  of  the  Passover  of  which 
Wellhausen  finds  any  record  is  that  in  the  eighteenth 
year  of  king  Josiah,  2  Kin.  23j_2j^22,  which  he  tells 
us  was  kept  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of 
Deuteronomy  and  not  those  of  Ex.  12.  If  he  means 
anything  more  than  that  the  lamb  was  now  slain  at 
the  temple  and  its  blood  sprinkled  on  the  altar  in- 
stead of  on  the  door-posts  and  lintel,  we  may  well  ask 
him  where  he  obtained  his  information.  All  that  is 
said  of  the  mode  of  observance  is  contained  in  this 
single  verse :  ''  And  the  king  commanded  all  the 
people,  saying,  Keep  the  Passover  unto  the  LORD 
your  God,  as  it  is  written  in  this  book  of  the  cove- 
nant." The  terms  of  the  king's  command  seem  to 
be  drawn  from  Deut.  16:  i  (though  see  Ex.  12  :  48). 
And  the  critics  claim  with  some  plausibility  that  the 
reformation  of  Josiah  took  its  impulse  and  shape  from  _ 


THE  PASSOVER: 


229 


the  book_of  Deuteronomy.'  But  as  the  book  of 
Kings  gives  no  account  of  the  ritual  observed  in  this 
instance,  this  question  is  of  no  consequence  to  us  at 
present. 

Great  stress  is,  however,  laid  upon  the  statement 
in  ver,_j22^i'  Surely  there  was  not  holden  such  a  Pass- 
over  from  the  days  of  the  judges  that  judged  Israel, 
nor  in  all  the  days  of  the  kings  of  Israel,  nor  of  the 
kings  of  Judah."  This  is  intejrpmted-to  mean  that, 
this  was  _ttie__first  JBassovei^  ever  held  in  accordance 
with  Deuteronomic  lawv  Previously  there  had  only 
been  local  celebrations,  each  neighborhood  or  district 
observing  it  in  their  own  particular  sanctuary.  Now 
for  the  first  time  these  were  superseded  and  there 
was  one  celebration  for  the  whole  people.  WsH- 
hausen's  idea  is  that  the  feast^  of  Tabernacles_  niay 
have  been  observed  as  a  national  festival  in  Jeru. 
salem  at  an  earlier  period,  perhaps  from  the  time  of 
Solomon;  but  that  the  Passover  had  never  reached 
this  distinction.  And  the  peculiarity  of  Xpsiah's 
Passover  was  that  it  too  was  now  made  national 
But — I.  This  is  importing  a  meaning  into  the  text 
which  is  not  there.  This  verse  not  only  suggests  no 
contrast  with  previous  local  celebrations,  but  there  is 
not  a  line  in  the  entire  Old  Testament  to  intimate 
that  such  a  thing  had  ever  been  known  as  local  cele- 
.brations  of  the  Passover.  ^  This  is  scaTce_ly„co.nsist- 
ent  with  the  passages  above  cited  from  Isaiah,  which 
plainly  declare  the  celebration  of  the  Passover  at 
Jerusalem.      3^  If_2_ChrorL_„^  is  to    be    believed, 

'  See  '•  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,"  by  Dr.  Robert 
son  Smith,  p.  425. 


230  ■  THE  PASSO  VER. 

there  had  been  a  national  observance  of  the  Passover 
in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  which  although  repudiated 
by  some,  ver.  lo,  had  yet  not  had  its  equal  since  the 
period  of  the  schism,  ver.  26.  4.  The  verse  befor^^ 
us,  even  as  interpreted  by  Wellhausen,  necessarily 
implies  that  such  national  celebrations  of  the  Pass-^ 
over  at  the  sanctuary  had  taken  place  in  the  time  of 
the  judges,  when  as  we  learn  from  i  Sam.  2  :  14,  all 
Israel  resorted  to  the  tabernacle  at  Shiloh.  £.  The 
natural  suggestion  of  the  verse  i^  that  the  distinction 
of  Josiah's  Passover  lay  not  in  its  being  natiqnaLas 
opposed  to  neighborhood  celebrations,  but  in  the 
uniyersaHty  of  the  attendance  as  opposed  to  the 
coming  up  of  a  part  only  of  the  people.  This  evi- 
dently lies  in  the  words,  "  all  the  days  of  the  kings 
of  Israel  and  of  the  kings  of  Judah,"  that  is  to  say, 
the  whole  duration  of  the  schism,  in  which  the  ten 
tribes  were  debarred  from  attendance  at  Jerusalem, 
comp.  the  paraphrase  of  this  verse  in  2  Chron.  35  :  18. 
And  the  writer  would  have  us  understand  that  the 
enthusiastic  eagerness  with  which  the  whole  popula- 
tion now  flocked  from  every  part  of  the  land  to  en- 
gage in  this  sacred  service  even  exceeded  that  of  the 
days  of  David  and  Solomon. 

According  to  Wellhausen  this  is  the  first  mention^ 
of  the  Passover  in  any  of  the  historical  books.  As 
he  attributes  no  wdght  io  the  testimony  either  of 
Joshua  or  Chronicles,  he  gives  no  credence  to  the 
Passover  at  Gilgal,  Josh.  5  :  10,  nor  to  that  of  Solo- 
mQn^  2  Chron.  8:  13,  nm;  to  that  of  Hezekiah,  2 
Chron.  30.     Redsloh  *  will  not   even  ^llow  the  hisi_ 

'  "  Stiftung  und  Grund  der  Paschafeier,"  p.  33. 


THE  PASSOVER.  23 1 

torical  characterof  the  Passover  oLJ-Qsiah,  and  says: 
"  It_2s_plain  to  see  that  the  passage,  2  Kings  2^  :  21- 
£^^jvhich__givss^a_n_account  of  the  Passover  observed 
by  him,  is  interpolated  here  by  a  different  hand  from 
another  source."  But  accepting  Wellhausen's  view 
of  the  case^  how  comes  it  to  pass  that  though  three 
pilgrimage  feasts  are  enjoined  in  what  he  considers 
the  very  oldest  codes  of  law,  Ex.  23  and  34,  the  first 
of  the  series  isnowhere  mentioned  in  the  history 
until  the  reign  of  JosiahL  Whatever  explanation  he 
may  propose  of  this  circumstance,  the  conclusion  is 
not  to  be  evaded  on  his  own  premises,  that  the  ex- 
istence of  a  statute  is  not  discredited  by  an  omission 
on  the  part  of  the  sacred  historian  to  record  its  ob- 
servance. 

Another  consideration  which  forces  itself  upon  us 
is  that  he  has  utterly  failed  to  verify  in  the  history 
the  development  of  the  festival,  which  he  claimed  to 
have  discovered  in  the  feast  laws  in  even  so  much  as 
a  single  particular.  The  Passover  is  twice  spoken  of 
after  the  time  of  Josiah,  viz. :  by  Ezekiel,  45  :  21-24, 
and  as  observed  by  the  returned  exiles,  Ezra  6  :  19  ff. 
The  comparison  of  these  cases  with  one  another  and 
with  the  accounts  given  in  Chronicles  of  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  Passover,  in  which  it  is  held  that  the 
writer  reflects  the  usage  of  his  own  day  rather  than 
that  of  the  period  which  he  is  describing,  might  ap- 
pear at  first  sight  to  favor  the  idea  of  progressive 
changes  in  certain  respects.  The  critics  affirm,  as  we 
have  seen,  that  the  earliest  Passover  laws  do  not  fix 
it  at  a  definite  date.  It  was  observed  in  the  first 
month,  but  the  precise  time  may  have  varied  from  yeaf 


232  THE  PASSO  VER. 

to  year  with  the  character  of  the  season  and  the  for- 
wardness of  the  harvest.  But  after  it  was  transferred 
to  the  capital  of  the  nation,  and  concert  of  action 
became  necessary  on  the  part  of  pilgrims,  the  Priest 
Code  fixed  it  upon  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month. 
In  seeming  correspondence  with  this  the  day  of 
Josiah's  Passover  is  not  named  in  2  Kin.  23  :  21,  22 ; 
but  it  is  given  as  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first 
month  in  Ezekiel  and  Ezra,  and  so  in  the  account 
given  in  Chronicles  of  Josiah's  Passover,  2  Chron. 
35  :  I  ;  while  Hezekiah's  Passover,  30 :  15,  was  on  the 
fourteenth  day  of  the  second  month,  as  allowed, 
Num.  9:11,  when  there  had  been  any  absolute  hin- 
drance at  the  proper  season. 

But  the  slightest  examination  will  show  that  any 
inference  from  these  premises  would  be  invalid.  For, 
I.  In  the  brief  allusion  to  the  Passover  in  2  Kin.  23^ 
not  even  the  month  is  named,  though  this  is  fixed  in 
all  the  oldest  codes,  so  called,  Ex.  23,  34,  and  Deut. 
16.  2.  The  statement  in  i  Kin.  12  :  32,  33,  that  Jero- 
boam ordained  his  feast  on  "the  fifteenth  day  of  the 
eighth  month,  even  in  the  month  which  he  had  de- 
vised of  his  own  heart,"  implies  that  he  had  changed 
the  month,  but  not  the  day ;  and  that  the  fifteenth 
ivas  the  proper  day  for  Judah's  feast  of  the  seventh 
month,  I  Kin.  8  : 2,  and  for  a  festal  observance  in  gen- 
eral ;  which  raises  the  presumption  that  the  feast  of 
the  first  month  was  also  observed  on  the  same  day 
of  the  month.  3.  If  the  Asaph  named  in  the  title  of 
Ps.  81  as  its  author,  was  the  seer  and  contemporary  of 
David,  I  Chron.  16:  7,  2  Chron.  29  :  30,  we  have  here 
explicit  testimony  as  to  the  time  of  the  observance  of 


THE  PASSOVER. 


233 


the  Passover  at  that  period.  Though  explained  by 
some  authorities  of  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  the 
evident  allusion  to  the  plague  of  the  first-born,  and 
the  exodus  as  the  occasion  of  the  festival,  determine 
it  to  be  the  Passover,  ver.  3-5.  "Blow  the  trumpet 
in  the  month,  in  the  full  moon  for  the  day  of  our 
feast.  For  this  is  a  statute  for  Israel,  a  law  of  the 
God  of  Jacob.  This  he  ordained  in  Joseph  for  a 
testimony,  when  he  went  out  over  the  land  of  Egypt," 
i.  e.j  to  inflict  that  plague  which  set  Israel  free.  And 
even  though  the  Psalm  be  of  later  date,  of  which, 
however,  there  is  no  clear  evidence,  it  still  suggests  a 
reason  that  was  equally  cogent  from  the  beginning, 
for  assigning  the  great  pilgrimage  feasts  to  the  fif- 
teenth of  the  month,  viz.,  that  this  was  the  time  of 
the  full  moon.  This  commended  itself  as  the  most 
appropriate  time,  not  from  any  superstitious  or  pagan 
association,  but  on  account  of  the  brightness  of  the 
nights  it  was  far  more  favorable  for  journeying. 

But  here  we  are  confronted  with  those  mysterious 
chapters  in  the  latter  part  of  the  prophecy  of  Ezekiel, 
his  vision  of  the  temple  rebuilt,  the  ritual  restored, 
and  the  land  distributed  again  among  the  tribes. 
This,  we  are  told,  is  actually  the  first  draught  of  the 
Levitical  law.  We  see  it  in  the  process  of  formation. 
Ezekiel,  from  the  part  of  a  prophet,  proceeds  to  ex- 
ercise the  function  of  a  legislator  in  regard  to  the 
sanctuary  and  the  ceremonial,  for  which  his  priestly 
origin  and  perhaps  priestly  experience  had  fitted  him. 
Smend  ^  tells  us  that  "  the  decisive  importance  of 
this  section  for  the  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  was 
1  "  Der  Prophet  Ezechiel,"  p.  312. 


234 


THE  PASSOVER. 


first  recognized  by  George  and  Vatke.  It  has  rightly 
been  called  the  key  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  fact 
it  is  only  intelligible  as  an  intermediate  link  between 
Deuteronomy  and  the  Priest  Code,  and  it  thence  fol- 
lows that  the  latter  is  exilic  or  post-exilic.  This  in- 
termediate position  it  holds  not  merely  logically,  but 
historically.  The  transformation  here  takes  place 
before  our  eyes  of  ancient  into  modern  Israel  ;  that 
is,  in  this  case  of  Deuteronomy  into  the  Priest  Code." 
And  he  undertakes  to  exhibit  in  detail  the  evidence 
that  the  ritual  prescriptions  of  Ezekiel  must  have 
preceded  those  of  the  Levitical  law ;  but  his  entire 
argument  is  based  on  his  own  prepossessions,  and 
loses  all  its  force  if  these  are  not  first  taken  for  granted. 
He  tells  us  that  ''  Ezekiel's  feast  legislation  is  abso- 
lutely inexplicable,  if  he  was  acquainted  with  the 
Priest  Code  ;  on  the  contrary,  the  latter  is  built  upon 
Ezekiel's  enactments."  In  inquiring  whether  this  is 
so,  we  shall  first  avail  ourselves  of  Smend's  clear 
presentation  of  their  distinctive  features.  Ezekiel, 
45  :  i8  ff.,  divides  the  year  into  two  equal  parts,  and 
begins  each  with  an  expiatory  sacrifice,  offered  on  the 
first  day  of  the  first  and  seventh'  months  respectively. 
Each  is  followed  a  fortnight  later  by  a  seven-day 
feast,  Passover,  and  the  autumnal  festival.  No  men- 
tion is  made  of  the  feast  of  Weeks,  which  occurs  in 
every  other  feast  law  ;  nor  of  the  eighth  day  of  Taber- 
nacles ;  nor  of  sacrificial  meals  that  are  so  prominent 
in  Deuteronomy ;  but  only  of  sacrifices  offered  in  the 

'  This  is  based  on  the  supposition  of  an  error  in  the  text  of  ver. 
20,  where  for  "seventh  day  of  the  month,"  read  "first  day  of  th« 
seventh  month." 


THE  PASSO  VER. 


535 


name  of  the  whole  people,  such  as  are  prescribed  in 
the  Levitical  code,  but  differing  throughout  in  details. 
The  same  offerings  are  to  be  presented  at  each  feast, 
a  bullock  for  a  sin-offering  for  the  prince  and  people 
of  the  land,  and  daily  during  each  term  of  seven  days 
seven  bullocks  and  seven  rams  for  a  burnt-offering, 
and  a  kid  of  the  goats  for  a  sin-offering.  Instead  of 
this  Num.  28  prescribes  for  each  day  of  the  Passover 
two  bullocks,  one  ram,  and  seven  lambs  for  a  burnt- 
offering  and  one  goat  for  a  sin-offering;  and  at  Tab- 
ernacles from  thirteen  to  seven  bullocks,  two  rams 
and  fourteen  lambs  for  a  burnt-offering  and  one  goat 
for  a  sin-offering.  Ezekiel  also  says  nothing  of  the 
presentation  of  the  sheaf  and  the  loaves  of  the  first- 
fruits  with  their  accompanying  offerings  or  the  dwell- 
ing in  booths  at  Tabernacles. 

This,  it  is  claimed,  is  a  wholly  new  departure,  and 
involves  a  radically  different  conception  of  the  feasts 
from  that  of  the  older  legislation,  where  festive  meals 
and  offerings  on  private  account  are  the  main  thing. 
Ezekiel,  like  the  Priest  Code,  has  no  interest  except 
in  the  public  sacrifices,  while  yet  in  the  details  of  his 
prescriptions  he  deviates  from  the  Priest  Code  in  every 
particular.  Why,  it  is  asked,  did  not  Ezekiel  simply 
repeat  the  directions  of  the  Priest  Code,  if  he  was  ac- 
quainted with  it,  since  it  accomplished  precisely  the 
transformation  of  the  festivals  which  he  was  seeking 
to  effect?  Why  depart  from  it  perpetually  in  details 
which  were  quite  unimportant  and  without  any  as- 
signable reason,  while  in  principle  he  agrees  with  it 
throughout  ?  Smend  infers  that  Ezekiel  could  not 
have  been  acquainted  with  the  Priest  Code ;  in  fact. 


236  THE  PASSOVER. 

that  it  was  not  yet  in  existence.  Ezekiel  initiated  a 
movement,  which  was  further  carried  out  in  the  Priest 
Code.  This  latter  is  simply  the  scheme  of  Ezekiei 
elaborated  and  modified. 

But  this  reasoning  assumes  the  very  thing  at  issue. 
The  alleged  change  in  the  mode  of  observing  the 
feasts,  from  joyous  sacrificial  meals  to  formal,  stereo- 
typed and  statutory  sacrifices  in  the  name  of  the  peo- 
ple, is  a  pure  fiction.  We  have  seen  already  that  the 
Levitical  law  does  not  exclude  free-will  offerings  and 
festive  meals,  and  that  Deuteronomy  does  not  ex- 
clude the  public  sacrifices ;  that  these  laws  are  mu- 
tually supplementary,  and  presuppose  each  other. 
Though  Ezekiel  says  nothing  of  the  feast  of  Weeks, 
Smend  claims  that  he  did  not  intend  to  set  aside  the 
pilgrimages  which  Deuteronomy  ordained  for  that 
day.  There  is  indeed  no  paschal  lamb ;  but  Smend 
imagines  him  to  mean  that  the  firstlings  should  be 
eaten  at  festive  meals.  He  might  as  well  say  the 
same  of  Lev.  23  and  Num.  28,  which  likewise  say 
nothing  of  the  paschal  lamb,  for  the  very  sufficient 
reason  that  it  had  been  already  ordained  in  Ex.  12. 
Why  does  Ezekiel  place  the  Passover  on  the  four- 
teenth, while  the  other  feast  was  on  the  fifteenth,  but 
for  the  service  of  the  paschal  lamb  which  is  presup- 
posed as  too  much  a  matter  of  course  to  require 
special  mention?  Ezekiel's  scheme  is  simpler  and 
less  intricate,  particularly  as  regards  the  sacrificial 
animals,  than  that  of  the  Levitical  law;  but  who 
shall  say  on  this  ground  which  is  the  primary  and 
which  the  secondary  draught  ?  A  reviser  may  sim- 
plify as  well  as  elaborate.     The  alphabet  is  far  less 


THE  FASSO  VER.  237 

complicated  than  hieroglyphics.  Ezekiel  certainly 
showed  a  disposition  to  simplify  in  reducing  the  old 
cycle  of  three  feasts  to  two  ;  why  may  he  not  have 
done  the  same  in  the  festal  ceremonial  ? 

But  why,  it  is  asked,  did  Ezekiel  deviate  so  con- 
stantly from  the  Levitical  law  and  in  such  petty  de- 
tails for  no  imaginable  reason  ?  It  is  as  easy  to  re- 
verse the  question,  and  quite  as  difficult  to  answer  it ; 
why  should  the  Priest  Code  differ  in  this  petty  man- 
ner from  Ezekiel  after  he  had  ordained  the  law  on 
the  express  authority  of  the  LORD  God?  Ezekiel's 
whole  sketch  is  ideal.  It  was  not  literally  obeyed  in 
a  single  particular.  The  temple  was  not  rebuilt  by 
his  directions.  The  ceremonial  was  not  restored  as 
he  prescribed.  The  land  was  not  divided  agreeably 
to  his  injunctions.  This  non-compliance  on  the  part 
of  those  who  honored  him  as  a  prophet  of  the  LORD, 
shows  that  they  understood  his  words  not  as  com- 
mands which  they  were  to  obey,  but  as  an  idealized 
picture  of  the  future  which  the  LORD  would  bring 
to  pass.  It  was  no  more  designed  to  guide  in  the 
work  of  reconstruction  than  Jeremiah  31  :  38-40  was 
to  be  followed  in  rebuilding  the  walls  of  Jerusalem, 
or  than  Zechariah  2  : 4  enjoined  their  demolition. 
The  departures  from  Levitical  law  above  referred  to 
may  have  been  designed  on  the  one  hand  to  intimate 
that  the  ceremonial  was  not  a  finality  and  forever  unal- 
terable ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  like  plain  impossibili- 
ties, that  are  also  incorporated  in  his  scheme  to  sug- 
gest that  they  were  not  intended  to  be  obeyed,  so 
long,  at  least,  as  the  Mosaic  law  held  sway.  There 
never  could  be  any  hesitation  about  the  proper  answer 


238 


THE  PASSOVER. 


to  the  question  whether  their  obedience  was  due  to 
the  vision  of  Ezekiel  or  to  the  statutes  of  Moses. 
The  latter  was  law ;  the  former  was  .a  picture  of  the 
future,  which  in  many  respects  may  have  been  per- 
plexing, but  it  was  not  for  the  guidance  of  their  con- 
duct. 

We  have  looked  in  every  quarter  for  the  promised 
evidence  of  a  historical  development  of  the  feast  of 
the  Passover,  and  have  not  been  able  to  discover  it. 
Dr.  Delitzsch,'  who  advocates  the  progressive  develop- 
ment of  the  feasts  to  a  certain  extent,  nevertheless 
uses  the  following  language :  ''  In  the  reconstruction 
of  the  course  of  development  we  are  thrown  entirely 
upon  the  Pentateuch;  the  historical  books  give  us  no 
certain  disclosures ;  for  actual  practice  has  at  no  time 
slavishly  bound  itself  to  the  letter  of  the  law,  and  con- 
sequently no  sufficient  proof  of  the  existence  or  non- 
existence of  legal  norms  can  be  drawn  from  the  his- 
tory." 

We  have  now  canvassed  the  whole  ground  covered 
by  the  critics  in  relation  to  the  Passover.  We  have 
minutely  examined  all  the  discrepancies  and  contra- 
rieties which  they  allege  in  the  history  of  its  institu- 
tion in  Ex.  12,  13;  and  all  the  proofs  adduced  to 
show  that  two  or  more  accounts  are  there  blended, 
whose  conflicting  representations  render  them  untrust- 
worthy. But  we  found  nothing  to  militate  either 
against  the  unity  of  authorship  or  the  truthfulness  of 
the  record.  We  have  carefully  examined  the  mutual 
relations  of  the  several  feast  laws  to  one  another  and 

'  Riehm's  "  HandwOrterbuch  des  Biblischen  Alterthums."  Art. 
Passah,  p.  1142. 


THE  PASSOVER.  239 

to  the  general  body  of  the  legislation  in  which  they 
are  imbedded,  and  have  found  that,  instead  of  being 
distinct  and  isolated  laws,  conflicting  in  their  provis- 
ions and  representing  different  stages  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  ordinance,  they  are  quite  harmonious, 
and,  in  fact,  presuppose  and  supplement  each  other. 
We  have  examined  in  succession  the  various  particu- 
lars in  which  the  growth  of  the  Passover  is  said  to 
be  traceable  in  the  laws,  the  original  separateness,  and 
subsequent  combination  of  the  Passover  and  the  feast 
of  Unleavened  Bread,  the  change  from  a  feast  of  first- 
fruits  and  firstlings  to  a  historical  commemoration, 
from  a  movable  feast  regulated  by  the  changing 
time  of  harvest  to  its  establishment  on  a  fixed  day  of 
the  month,  the  alleged  modifications  in  the  ritual, 
and  particularly  the  change  from  voluntary  offerings 
of  an  individual  and  domestic  nature  to  public  sacri- 
fices prescribed  with  unvarying  uniformity,  and  from 
a  neighborhood  festival  to  its  celebration  at  the  na- 
tional capital ;  and  we  have  found  no  evidence  of 
such  development  in  any  one  direction.  There  is 
none  discoverable  in  the  laws,  there  is  none  discover- 
able in  the  history ;  and  even  the  mysterious  vision 
of  Ezekiel  leaves  the  subject  where  it  found  it.  In 
the  absence  then  of  any  good  reason  for  departing 
from  the  old  and  well-attested  belief  upon  this  sub- 
ject, we  have  a  right  to  conclude  that  the  Passover 
was  from  the  beginning  precisely  what  is  recorded  in 
the  history  of  its  institution,  and  what  it  is  defined  to 
be  in  the  several  Mosaic  statutes. 


vn. 


tH£    FEAST    OF    WEEKS 


VII. 

THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS. 

THE  second  feast  in  the  Hebrew  cycle  is  called 
in  Ex.  23:  16  'the  feast  of  Harvest.*  It  oc< 
curred  at  the  end  of  harvest  as  the  feast  of  Unleav- 
ened Bread  did  at  the  beginning,  and  was  observed 
in  acknowledgment  of  God's  bounty  shown  in  the 
ripened  grain.  In  Ex^^ :  22,  Deut^6j_i_0i^it  is  de- 
nominated 'the  feast  of  Weeks,'  since  it  was  seven 
weeks-afteX-ihe  Passover;  in  Num.  28  :  26  *  the  day  of 
the  first-fruits'  because  of  the  presentation  on  that 
day  at  the  sanctuary  of  bread  made  from  the  first- 
fruits  of  the  wheat  harvesTi'  It  is  more  familiarly 
known  among  us  by  its  Greek  name  '  Pentecost ' 
(fifty),  which  it  bore  because  of  the  interval  of  fifty 
days  from  the  preceding  feast.  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment it  is  associated  with  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  the  first  ingathering  into  the  Christian 
Church,  the  first-fruits  of  the  great  harvest  of  Re- 
demption. 

This  feast  was  also  called  by  the  Jews  |7i*>^5^  ^^ 
solemn  assembly.  Josephus,  who  mentions  this  fact 
(Antiq.  HI.,  10,6),  betrays  the  most  astonishing  igno- 
rance of  Hebrew  by  saying  that  the  word  means 
'  fifty,'  though  it  has  not  the  slightest  resemblance  to 
that  numeral. 

(243) 


244  ^-^^  FEAST  OF  WEEKS. 

Wellhausen,^  with  more  ingenuity  than  good  sense, 
makes  a  different  appHcation  of  the  name  *  feast  of 
Weeks' in  Ex.  34:22.  According  to  his  critical  hy- 
pothesis, ver.  18,  which  speaks  of  the  feast  of  Unleav- 
ened Bread,  is  not  an  original  part  of  the  text  in  which 
it  stands,  but  has  been  transferred  from  23  :  15.  Ex- 
cluding this,  he  finds  all  three  of  the  feasts  mentioned 
together  in  ver.  22,"*  ''  the  feast  of  Weeks,  of  the  first- 
fruits  of  wheat  harvest,  and  the  feast  of  Ingathering." 
The  feast  of  Weeks  he  takes  to  be  a  common  name 
for  the  firsl_ajid_sec£)nd- festivals,  or  rather  for_the_,en- 
tire  joyful  period  of  harvest  embraced  betweenthem, 
though  only  celebrated  in  a  festive  manner  atjts  two 
extremities.  The  suggestion  that  the  text  requires 
correction,  because  vs.  19-21  interrupt  the  connection 
as  they  stand  at  present,  however  plausible  at  first 
sight,  is  not  decisive.  The  injunction  to  observe 
the  three  annual  feasts  instead  of  being  given  contin- 
uously as  in  23:  15,  16,  and  as  might  naturally  be 
expected,  is  interrupted  by  the  insertion  of  another 
subject.  They  are  fkst  bidden  to  keep  the  feast  of 
Unleavened  Bread,  ver.  18.,/  Then  comes  a  law  for. 
the  sanctification  of  the  first-born,  vs.  19,  20,  and  of 
the  Sabbath  day,  ver.  21.  And  after  that.^oUows  the 
command  to  observe  the  two  remaining^  feasts,  ver. 
22.  Their  dislocation,  it  is  said,  is  the  work  of  some 
ignorant  interpolator,  who,  not  perceiving  that  all  the 
feasts  are  named  in  ver;_22,_undertook  to  remedy  ihe. 

'  "  Geschichte,"  p.  89. 

^  In  "  Jahrbiicher  fur  Deutsche  Theologie,"  1876,  p.  554,  he  treats 
ver.  18  as  genuine,  and  throws  ver.  22  out  of  the  text.  But  a  critic 
may  be  allowed  sometimes  to  change  his  mind. 


THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS. 


Mb 


supposed  omission  by  inserting,  ver.  i8,  a  special  or- 
der to  observe  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread.  But 
the  consecration  of  the^  firjt-bornwas  by  a  very  nat- 
ural association  connected  with  the  feast  of  Unleavened 
Bread,  since  both  are  alike  traced  to  the  last  plague ^ 
of  E,g}pt,  and  hence  they  are  similarly  placed  together 
in  other  laws.  And  that  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  is 
introduced  by  a  like  association  is  evident  from  the 
reason  here  given  for  its  observance.  "  In  ploughing- 
time  and  in  harvest  thou  shalt  rest."  It  is  a  digres- 
sion,  to  be  sure,  but  such  a  digression  as  is  easily 
explained.  And  if  ver.  i8  were  an  interpolation,  it 
would  still  remain  to  be  accounted  for,  that  it  was 
not  inserted  in  immediate  connection  with  the  other 
feasts,  but  at  such  a  remove  from  it ;  and  this  would 
be  as  difficult  to  explain  as  that  it  should  have  been 
originally  written  as  it  now  is. 

Hjizig^  makes  some  very  remarkable  deductions 
from  this  difference  of  names,  and  sQme  slight  differ- 
ences  in  the  forms  of  expression  relative  to  this  feast. 
In  Ex.  23:  16  it  is  called  ''the  feast  of  Harvest,  the 
first-fruits  of  thy  labors,  which  thou  hast  sown  in  thy 
field."  Now  as  barley  was  the  first  to  mature  of  all 
the  grains  sown  in  the  field,  he  infers  that  the  feast 
here  stands  at  the  beginning  of  barley  harvest,  while 
the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  according  to  his  hy- 
pothesis, spoken  of  in  a  former  lecture,  was  observed 
at  the  new  moon  of  Abib,  or  on  the  first  day  of  that 
month.  In  Ex.  34 :  22  it  is  called  "  the  feast  of  Weeks, 
of  the  first-fruits  of  wheat  harvest,"  and  accordingly 
had  been  shifted  from  the  first  harvesting  of  barley 

'Ostern  und  Pfingsten  im  Zvveiten  Dekalog,"  1838. 


246  THE  FEAST  OF  WEEICS, 

to  that  of  wheat,  which  came  later ;  the  designation 
*  feast  of  Weeks  *  is  interpreted  to  mean  as  rpany  days 
as  there  are  weeks  in  the  lunar  year,  i.  e.^  fifty  days 
reckoned  from  the  preceding  feast,  which  still  stood 
on  the  first  day  of  Abib.  TnTUeut.  16 : 9,  10,  the  seven 
weeks  to  this  feast  are  no  longer  reckoned  from  the 
first  of  Abib,  but  from  "  such  time  as  thou  beginnest 
to  put  the  sickle  to  the  corn,"  which  brings  it  later 
still  and  puts  the  feast  where  it  subsequently  re- 
mained, at  the  end  of  wheat  harvest. 

But  the  word  *  first-fruits'  tD'^'lID!!  ^^^^  "sed  does 
not  denote  the  very  first  grains  thaFwere  reaped,  and 
thus  imply  that  the  festival  came  at  the  beginning 
of  the  reaping  instead  of  at  the  end.  The  time  for 
grateful  joy  and  thanksgiving  is  naturally  at  the  ter- 
mination of  harvest,  when  the  crop  has  been  success- 
fully stored,  rather  than  at  the  outset  when  many 
contingencies  are  still  possible  to  cloud  the  prospect. 
This  appears  further  from  the  analogy  of  the  succeed-, 
ing  feast,  that  of  Ingathering,  which  was  celebrated 
after  the  fruits  had  been  collected.  This  same  word 
^*i-|1^^  (first-fruits)  is,  Lev.  23  :  17,  applied  to  the 
wave  loaves  presented  before  the  LORD  after  the  har- 
vest was  over,  and  is  different  from  that  used  of  the 
sheaf  of  first-fruits  (tTT©g^*i),  ver.  10.  If  accordingly 
this  festival  belonged  at  the  end  of  harvest,  Ex.  23  :  16 
can  not  limit  it  to  the  harvest  of  barley ;  for  it  ter- 
minates in  the  middle  of  the  harvest  period,  and  the 
anomaly  would  result  of  a  harvest  festival  with  no 
relation  to  the  wheat,  the  chief  of  all  the  grains,  which 
then  would  not  have  been  gathered  until  after  the 
feast.     "Thy  labors  which   thou   hast   sown   in  thy 


THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS. 


247 


fields"  can  not  be  limited  to  barley,  but  must  embrace- . 
wheat  as. ^a^ell ;  so  that  the  celebration  must  have  been 
in  reference  to  the  entire  harvest  and  have  stood  at 
its  close.  The  time  assigned  to  this  feast  in  Ex.  23 
and  34  and  Deut.  16  is,  therefore,  identical,  notwith- 
standing the  slight  variations  in  the  form  of  expres- 
sion, and  the  weeks  in  Ex.  34  are  to  be  reckoned  in 
the  same  manner  as  in  Deut.  16,  where  it  is  more  pre- 
cisely defined. 

The  feast,  of  Weeks  lasted  but  a  single  day,  while 
each  of  the  other  feasts  continued  seven  days.  It  is 
not  to  be  inferred  from  this  that  all  were  originally 
limited  to  one  day,  but  that  from  the  special  interest 
attached  to  the  Passover  and  Tabernacles,  they  were 
afterward  prolonged  :  just  as  mention  is  made  that, 
both  at  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  temple  and 
the  Passover  of  Hezekiah,  the  period  of  seven  days 
was  itself  doubled  on  account  of  the  enthusiasm  of 
the  occasion,  i  Kin.  8  :  65,  2  Chron.  30  :  23.  That  the 
feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  was  in  its  origin  limited 
to  one  day  was  maintained  not  only  by  Hitzig,  who 
confined  it  to  the  day  of  the  new  moon,  but  also  by 
others  who  conceived  that  the  commemoration  of  the 
events  of  the  exodus  would  naturally  be  at  first  re- 
stricted to  one  anniversary  day.  According  to  the 
uniform  testimony  of  the  Passover  laws  already  re- 
viewed, however,  the  spring  feast  from  the  first  cov- 
ered seven  days.  And  the  same  was  the  case  with 
the  autumnal  feast  of  Tabernacles. 

A  full  festal  period  was  thus  a  term  of  seven  days, 
the  week  being  the  first  denomination  of  time  larger 
than  a  day.     The  adoption  of  the  number  seven  into 


248  THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS, 

the  festal  cycle  was  intended  to  link  it  with  the  sab- 
batical series,  of  which  seven  was  the  regulative  factor 
While  the  first  and  the  third  of  the  feasts  lasted  seven 
days  each,  the  second  had  a  similar  association  at- 
tached to  it,  though  in  a  somewhat  different  manner, 
by  being  placed  at  seven  times  seven  days  remove 
from  the  preceding  feast.  The  ordinary  festal  offer- 
ing day  by  day  likewise  had,  combined  with  other 
animals,  the  invariable  number  of  seven  lambs,  or  in 
Tabernacles  of  twice  seven,  while  the  total  number 
of  bullocks  offered  in  a  gradually  diminishing  scale 
throughout  the  seven  days  of  the  feast  was  seventy  or 
ten  times  seven.  And  besides  this  septenary  link  of 
connection  there  was  the  sabbatical  idea  itself.  One 
or  more  days  were  set  apart  in  each  feast  for  special 
religious  devotion  ;  labor  was  suspended  and  a  holy 
convocation  held,  though  the  rigor  of  the  abstinence 
from  work  was  not  so  strict  as  upon  the  weekly  Sab- 
bath. On  the  latter  the  command  was,  Ye  shall  do 
no  work ;  on  the  former.  Ye  shall  do  no  servile  work. 
All  the  sacred  times  were  thus  bound  together  into 
one  common  system,  in  their  essence  pervaded  by 
the  same  idea,  in  their  outward  form  marked  by  the 
prominence  of  the  same  sacred  number. 

The  brevity  of  the  feast  of  Weeks  as  compared 
with  the  other  principal  annual  festivals  naturally 
suggests  the  idea  of  its  sustaining  to  one  or  the 
other  some  relation  of  subordination.  And  the  fact 
of  its  time  being  determined  by  a  fixed  interval  be- 
tween it  and  its  predecessor  naturally  raises  the  query 
whether  they  may  not  belong  together.  Accordingly 
Ewald  devised  an  ingenious  and  remarkably  symmet- 


THE  FEAST  OF   WEEKS.  249 

rical  scheme  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  feast  of 
Weeks  was  primarily  and  properly  an  appendage  of 
the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread.  He  considered  it 
the  formal  close  of  that  seven-day  festival,  standing 
in  the  same  relation  to  it  as  the  eighth  day  of  Taber- 
nacles to  the  preceding  seven,  not  strictly  a  part  of 
it,  yet  so  attached  to  it  as  to  bring  the  whole  to  a 
solemn  and  suitable  termination.  Only  the  feast  of 
Weeks  was  separated  from  the  body  of  the  festival 
to  which  it  belonged  by  the  entire  period  of  the  in- 
tervening harvest  season,  which  all  received  a  con- 
secration from  being  enclosed  within  hallowed  and 
festive  limits.  And  the  parallel  was  pushed  still 
further  by  observing  that  each  of  the  two  principal 
feasts  was  in  turn  preceded  by  a  special  service,  and 
this  of  a  nature  which  had  its  analogy  in  the  ordinary 
method  of  the  ceremonial  and  in  the  ideas  which  it 
customarily  embodied.  "  Just  as  every  great  sacri- 
fice may  be  initiated  by  an  expiatory  offering,  and 
just  as  a  suitable  preparation  and  purification  should 
form  the  commencement  of  every  sacred  action,  so 
each  of  these  two  great  annual  festivals  was  preceded 
by  a  special  festival  of  expiation,  which  was  celebrated 
with  great  solemnity." '  Tabernacles  was  thus  pre- 
ceded by  the  annual  day  of  Atonement,  on  the  tenth 
of  the  month,  and  Unleavened  Bread  by  the  Passover, 
which  though  slain  on  the  fourteenth  was,  at  its  origi- 
nal institution,  selected  and  set  apart  on  the  tenth. 

The  whole  year  was  divided  into  two  nearly  equal 
portions.     There  was,  first,  the  festal  period,  extend- 

'  Ewald's    "Antiquities    of    Israel,"   translated    (Boston,   1876), 
P   357. 


250  THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS. 

ing  from  the  middle  of  the  first  to  the  middle  of  the 
seventh  month,  within  which  all  the  festivals  of  the 
year  were  embraced.  Then  the  remaining  six  months 
constituted  a  non-festal  period,  marked  by  the  ab- 
sence of  any  sacred  festival.  The  festal  portion  of 
the  year  was  again  divided  between  the  two  great 
feasts,  the  vernal  and  the  autumnal  feast,  the  former 
occurring  in  the  first  month  and  thus  opening  the 
year;  the  latter  forming  its  centre  and  culmination  in 
the  seventh,  to  which  was  accorded  the  dignity  of 
the  sacred  or  sabbatical  month.  In  Tabernacles  the 
festal  idea  rose  to  its  maximum,  as  was  shown  by  the 
duplication  of  sacrifices  and  by  the  fact  that  pilgrims 
were  required  to  remain  not  one  day,  as  at  Passover, 
but  the  whole  seven  days,  and  one  beyond.  And  each 
of  these  great  festivals,  which  thus  marked  and,  as  it 
were,  guarded  the  limits  of  the  festal  portion  of  the 
year,  was  composed  alike  of  three  constituents  of 
similar  character  ;  first  an  expiation,  then  the  main 
body  of  the  feast  lasting  seven  days,  then  one  more 
day  as  a  concluding  festival  at  the  end. 

The  striking  correspondence  thus  exhibited  cer- 
tainly lends  great  attractiveness  to  this  scheme, 
which  has  accordingly  been  extensively  adopted.  It 
is  notwithstanding  open  to  serious  objections. 

I.  The  virtual  reduction  of  the  feasts  to  two  is  an 
evident  departure  from  the  genuine  Hebrew  concep- 
tion, as  appears  from  the  uniform  triplicity  of  the 
festal  laws,  which  from  the  beginning  name  three 
great  feasts  as  so  many  distinct  and  separate  festi- 
vals, the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,  the  feast  of 
Weeks  and  the  feast  of  Tabernacles. 


THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS.  251 

2.  This  scheme  assumes  that  Unleavened  Bread  like 
thC'feast  of  Weeks  is  mainjy  and  distinctively  a  har- 
.yest_festival ;  that  they  are  so  entirely  of  the  same 
tenor  and  design  that  one  can  be  regarded  as  the 
continuation  of  the  other ;  whereas  the  former  was 
instituted  in  commemoration  of  the  exodus,  upon 
the  anniversary  of  which  it  was  observed.  It,  there- 
fore, was  historical  in  its  intent  and  character,  and 
properly  speakihg~st"bodlii  no  other  relation  to  the 
harvest  than  that  of  conjunction  in  point  of  time ; 
while  the  feast  of  Weeks  was  in  the  strict  and  proper 
sense  a  harvest  festival.  There  was  no  such  con_- 
gruity  between  the  two,  therefore,  as  brought  one 
into  the  intimate  relation  to  the  other  which  Ewald's 
scheme  supposes. 

3^  This  view  also  leads  to  the  solecism,  remarked 
upon  in  a  former  lecture,  of  celebrating  the  harvest 
feast  before  the  harvest  itself  was  reaped.  George ' 
indeed  says :  "  In  itself  considered  it  appears  to  be 
a  matter  of  indifference  whether  a  harvest  feast  is 
celebrated  at  the  beginning  or  end  of  harvest ;  and 
in  our  way  of  looking  at  the  thing,  it  is  more  natural 
to  observe  the  feast  when  the  grain  has  been  brought 

in  from  the  field As,  however,  they  were  not 

content  with  the  simple  expression  of  thanks,  but 
believed  it  to  be  incumbent  on  them  to  offer  a  part 
of  the  harvest  unto  God,  and  the  first-fruits  were 
selected  for  this  purpose,  the  harvest  feast  must  nec- 
essarily come  at  the  beginning."  The  Jewish  law- 
giver judged  differently ;  he  put  the  ceremony  of  the 
sheaf  of  the  first-fruits  at  the  beginning  of  harvest, 
^  "  Die  alteren  Jiidischen  Feste,"  p.  260. 


252  THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS. 

but  the  harvest  festival  itself  at  the  end.  And  upon 
his  own  view  of  the  case  George  finds  himself  puz- 
zled to  account  for  the  observance  of  the  feast  of 
Weeks  at  all ;  but  finally  concludes  that  the  Passover 
had  special  relation  to  the  barley  harvest  and  the 
feast  of  Weeks  to  the  wheat  harvest.  But  why  the 
inferior  grain  should  be  emphasized  by  a  feast  of 
seven  days,  and  that  which  was  chiefly  valued  and 
furnished  the  principal  staple  of  their  subsistence, 
should  call  for  a  feast  of  but  one  day,  he  does  not 
explain. 

4.  The  historical^sspciatiojtiJ^iLthe  Passover  likewise 
distinguishes  it  broadly  from  its  assumed  counterpart, 
the  day  of  Atonement,  which  had  no  such  association. 
The  Passover  was  an  initiatory  expiation  and  an  act 
of  communion  with  God,  in  which  the  bitter  herbs 
were  suggestive  of  Egyptian  bondage ;  but  the  whole 
service,  so  far  from  having  the  stern  and  severe 
aspect  which  has  sometimes  been  attributed  to  it, 
was  on  the  contrary  calculated  to  enkindle  thankful 
and  joyous  recollections  of  a  great  deliverance.  The 
day  of  Atonement,  on  the  other  hand,  was  the  one 
fast  of  the  Jewish  calendar,  a  day  of  humiliation  and 
penitence,  in  which  all  vvere  to  afflict  their  souls,  and 
by  significant  and^  striking  symbols  the  sins  of  the 
past  year  were  atoned  for  and  removed. 

5.  The  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  was  briiught  to. 
a  formal  close  by  the  services  of  its  seventh  day, 
which  was  observed  as  a  Sabbath,  Ex.  12  :  16,  13:6, 
and  bears  the  same  name  rT1^3?  Deut.  16  :  8,  that  is 
applied  to  the  eighth  day  or  concluding  festival  of 
Tabernacles.  And  not  only  was  unleavened  bread  not 


THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS. 


253 


required  to  be  eaten  at  the  feast  of  Weeks,  which  was 
the  special  characteristic  of  the  preceding  festival, 
but  leavened  bread  was  actually  directed  to  be  offered 
to  the  Lord,  which  was  not  enjoined  at  any  other 
feast  or  sacrifice. 

The  true  relation  of  this  feast  is  best  set  forth  by 
Hupfeld,'  and  this  is  in  fact  the  most  valuable  and 
satisfactory  result  of  his  discussion  of  this  whole  sub- 
ject. While  the  Passover  and  feast  of  Unleavened 
Bread  are.  distinctively  commemorative  of  a  great 
event  in  their  national  history,  the  divine  deliverance 
from  the  bondage  of  Egypt,  which  brought  them 
into  being  as  a  nation  and  as  the  Lord's  people,  the 
two  remaining  feasts  are  agricultural  and  are  designed 
to  give  expression  to  their  joyful  thanksgiving  for 
the  products  of  the  ground.  They  obviously  form  a 
class  by  themselves,  therefore,  having  the  same  gen- 
eral design  and  tendency.  Besides  these,  and  preced- 
ing them  both,  was  the  presentation  of  the  sheaf  of 
first-fruits  at  the  Passover,  which  was  the  first  forma, 
act  in  public  recognition  of  God's  annual  bounty. 
The  acknowledgment  of  God's  goodness  in  the  year 
in  supplying  the  means  of  subsistence  accordingly 
advanced  by  three  successive  stages  to  its  climax,  in 
which  Pentecost  held  the  intermediate  position. 

There  was  first  a  barley  sheaf,^  brought  at  the  be- 

^  "  De  primitiva  et  vera  festorum  ratione,"  Part  2. 

2  Wellhausen  correctly  infers  from  the  special  title,  Lev.  23:9,  10, 
that  in  the  plan  of  this  chapter  the  oresentation  of  the  barley  sheaf, 
though  occurring  at  Passover,  is  separated  from  it  and  attached  to 
what  follows  because  it  is  regarded  as  preliminary  to  Pentecost. 
"Jahrb.  fiir  Deutsche  Theologie,"  XXII.,  p.  432, 


254 


THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS. 


ginning  of  harvest  to  be  waved  before  the  LORD^ 
accompanied  by  3  lamb  as  a  burnt-ofT_ering  and  an 
appropriate  meat-offering,  significant  of  consecration. 
This  act  was  to  be  performed  upon  one  of  the  days 
of  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,  a  day,  therefore, 
which  in  this  general  sense  belonged  to  a  sacred  term, 
but  not  one  specially  hallowed  as  a  festal  Sabbath  by 
abstinence  from  toil  and  a  holy  convocation.  This 
gave  its  consecration  to  the  harvest  season  then  be- 
ginning, and  no  one  was  allowed  to  eat  from  the  new 
grain  bread  or  parched  corn  or  green  ears,  until  this 
offering  had  first  been  brought  to  God.  Then  came 
the  feast  of  Weeks  at  the  close  of  harvest,  when  the 
joy  and  thankfulness  of  the  husbandman  had  been 
correspondingly  heightened ;  this  found  its  fit  ex- 
pression not  merely  in  a  sacred  ceremony  as  before, 
performed  on  one  of  the  ordinary  days  of  a  feast 
which  was  instituted  for  a  different  purpose,  but  in 
a  feast  specially  appointed  for  this  sole  end,  and 
upon  a  day  which  was  sacredly  observed  as  a  Sabbath 
with  its  holy  convocation.  Then  not  merely  a  single 
sheaf  of  barley  was  presented  and  waved  before  the 
Lord,  but  two  loaves  of  leavened  wheat  bread ;  the 
number  was  duplicated,'  and  instead  of  the  crude 
material  the  final  product  prepared  for  human  use 
was  presented  at  the  sanctuary,  thus  hallowing  all 
the  bread  which  they  would   use  in  their  households 

'  The  two  loaves  were  to  be  made,  Lev.  23  :  17,  of  two  tenths  of 
an  ephah,  or  two  omers,  Ex.  16  ;  36,  of  flour.  As  the  word  for  sheaf. 
Lev.  23  :  ro,  11,  is  also  *y)2'S  omer,  it  is  not  improbable  that  it  was 
of  such  a  size  as  to  yield  an  omer  of  grain  ;  so  that  the  quantity 
may  have  been  precisely  doubled. 


THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS,  255 

day  by  day.  And  to  this  was  added  not  merely  one 
lamb  as  before,  but  ten  sacrificial  animals  for  a  burnt- 
offering  denoting  consecration  ;  a  kid  of  the  goats 
for  a  sin-offering  to  make  expiation  for  that  sense  of 
unworthiness  which  the  reception  of  God's  free  gifts 
inspires,  and  with  a  fresh  djiplication  of  the  former 
number  two  lambs  as  a  peace-offering  to  represent 
and  seal  communion  with  God. 

But  with  all  the  emphasis  thus  thrown  upon  this 
occasion,  the  feast  was  limited  to  a  single  day ;  this 
abbreviation  of  the  full  festal  period  showing  that  the 
climax  was  not  yet  reached.  This  came  with  the 
third  and  last  member  of  the  series  at  the  close  of  the 
ingathering  of  fruits  from  the  oliveyards  and  the 
vineyards,  when  all  the  products  of  the  year  had  been 
stored,  and  the  toil  of  the  husbandman  had  received 
its  full  reward,  in  the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  which  was 
not  only  prolonged  to  the  complete  festal  term  of 
seven  days,  but  had  an  added  day  beyond  it,  and  in 
which  sacrifices  were  offered  with  a  profusion  un- 
known at  any  other  festival.  The  feast  of  Weeks  is 
the  second  stage  in  this  ascending  scale,  linked  both 
to  the  preceding  ceremonial  and  to  the  succeeding 
feasti  an  appropriate  termination  to  the  harvest  of 
grain,  but  when  the  husbandman  was  still  l£oking 
forward  to  the  ingathering  of  fruits. 

The  true  position  thus  awarded  by  Hupfeld  to 
this  feast  was  unfortunately  somewhat  marred  by  his 
change  of  the  calendar,  which  spoiled  the  symmetry 
of  the  festal  period  of  the  year,  and  disturbed  the 
proper  relation  of  the  two  great  festivals.  His  idea 
that  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread  si^^nified  and  sealed 


256  THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS. 

the  priestly  consecration  of  the  people,  led  him  to 
throw  the  chief  emphasis  upon  it  as  marking  the  cli- 
max of  the  year,  and  consequently  to  invert  the  order 
of  the  feasts  by  adopting  the  reckoning  of  the  civil 
instead  of  the  ecclesiastical  year,  in  which  the  seventh 
month  became  the  first,  and  the  first  month  the 
seventh.  Tabernacles  thus  came  to  stand  in  his 
scheme  at  the  beginning  of  the  year,  which  was  then 
opened  by  the  feast  of  Trumpets  on  the  first  day  of 
the  same  month  as  the  formal  proclamation  of  the 
new  year.  Passover  then  stood  at  the  central  or 
climactic  point,  in  which  the  people  reached  their 
highest  dignity  in  their  elevation  to  sacerdotal  com- 
munion with  God,  the  Passover  as  a  personal  and  do- 
mestic expiation,  being  likewise  held  to  rank  above 
the  day  of  Atonement  for  the  sins  of  the  people  en 
masse. 

But  this  is  plainly  an  inversion  of  Hebrew  concep- 
tions which  Riehm^  in  reproducing  Hupfeld's  scheme 
has  very  £roperIy  cjQrrected.  The  accumulation  of 
festivals  in  the  seventh  month  proclaims  it  to  be  the 
sacred  culmination  of  the  year,  as  the  lengthened 
term  of  Tabernacles,  and  its  multiplied  sacrifices  de- 
clare it  to  be  the  climactic  festival,  which  it  must  in 
fact  be  upon  Hupfeld's  own  showing  of  its  relation 
to  the  sheaf  of  first-fruits  and  to  the  feast  of  Weeks. 

The  critics  claim  that  there  has  been  a  develop- 
ment in  the  feast  of  Weeks  like  that  which  they 
essay  to  show  in  the  other  two  great  feasts,  viz.,  a 
tendency  at  least  to  change  its  character  from  an 
agricultural  feast  to  a  historical  commemoration;  a 

'  "  Handvvorterbuch  dcs  Biblischen  Alterthums."     Art.  Feste. 


THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS.  257 

change  in  the  time  of  holding  it  which  at  first  varied 
with  the  season,  but  came  ultimately  to  be  attached 
to  a  determinate  date ;  a  change  in  its  ritual  from 
vojuntary  gifts  on  individual  account  to  public  sacri- 
fices regulated  by  statute,  and  a  change  in  place  from 
the^arious  local  sanctuaries  to  the  temple  at  the 
capital  of  the  nation. 

The  agricultural  character  and  aim  of  this  feast  is 
undeniable  ;  this  is  sufficiently  indicated  by  the  narnes 
applied  to  it,  the  added  descriptions  of  its  design,  the 
peculiar  ceremonial  appointed  for  it,  and  the  time  of 
its  occurrence  at  the  end  of  harvest,  which  was  estima- 
ted by  a  definite  period  of  time  from  its  beginning. 
And  no  other  character  is  attributed  to  it  or  in  the 
remotest  way  suggested  for  it  in  the  laws  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch. The  admonition  coupled  with  it,  Deut. 
16:  12,  to  remember  that  they  were  bondrgen  in  thg 
land  of  Egypt,  does  not  suggest  an  additional  rea- 
son for  the  institution  of  the  feast,  but  is  meant  to 
enforce  the  kindly  and  generous  use  of  the  opportun- 
ity which  it  affords,  to  befriend  the  impoverished  and 
dependent  classes  by  the  remembrance  of  their  own 
late  distressed  condition.  It  is  a  motive  which  the 
legislator  repeatedly  employs,  and  has  its  value  as  an 
indication  of  the  time  when  the  laws  were  given. 
Such  a  reminder  would  be  of  great  force  in  the 
mouth  of  Moses;  it  would  have  been  absolutely 
ridiculous  in  the  time  of  Josiah.  But  there  is  no 
suggestion  in  it  that  the  occasion  of  the  feast  was  in 
any  way  historical  or  connected  with  the  exodus. 
The  later  Jews  came  indeed  to  associate  it  with  the 
giving  of  the  law,  as  the  interval  between  it  and  the 
17 


258  •    THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS. 

Passover  corresponded  in  a  general  way  at  least  with 
the.  recorded  time  between  Israel's  leaving  Egypt 
and  encamping  at  the  base  of  Sinai.  That  was  sim- 
ply a  deduction,  however,  made  in  post-biblical  times, 
which  is  not  alluded  to  even  by  Philo  or  Josephus, 
and  to  which  there  is  no  reference  in  Scripture,  not 
even  in  the  passages  2  Chron.  15  :  lo,  12,  John  5  :  i,  39, 
in  which  Vaihinger '  professes  to  find  it.  It  has  no 
bearing,  consequently,  upon  the  question  whether  a 
development  can  be  traced  in  the  feast  laws  them- 
selves, so  that  they  must  be  assigned  to  different 
ages.     It  may,  therefore,  be  dismissed. 

The  allega<"ion  that  this  was  at  first  a  movable 
feast  la£ksj:onfirrnation.  The  general  and  somewhat 
indefinite  allusion  to  it,  Ex.  23  :  16,  merely  establishes 
its  relation  to  the  harvest  without  in  any  way  defin- 
ing the  time  of  its  occurrence.  The  repetition  of  this 
law,  however,  in  Ex.  34  :  22,  by  applying  to  it  the 
designation  '  feast  of  Weeks,'  shows  that  it  must  have 
been  observed  a  certain  number  of  weeks  after  some 
given  epoch  from  which  it  was  calculated.  What 
this  was  we  learn  more  definitely  from  Deut.  16  :  9,  10. 
The  feast  is  there  placed  at  the  end  of  seven  weeks 
from  the  time  of  beginning  to  put  the  sickle  to  the 
corn.  This,  it  is  claimed,  is  making  it  dependent 
upon  the  state  of  the  crop,  not  upon  the  phases  of 
the  moon  or  the  day  of  the  month. 

'  Herzog's  "  Encyklopiidie,"  Art.  Pfingstfest,  p.  483.  On  the  pre- 
ceding page  he  quotes  MaimoniJes  ("More  Nebochim,"  3,  43)  as 
saying,  "The  feast  of  Weeks  was  that  day  on  which  the  law  was 
given."  To  the  question,  When  did  God  give  the  ten  command- 
ments? the  Wurtcniburg  catechism  answers,  "  On  the  fiftieth  da> 
after  the  exodus  of  the  children  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt." 


THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS.  259 

But,  I.  While  this  would  fix  it  approximately  at  the 
end  of  harvest,  it  is  observable  that  it  is  not  stated 
in  that  form,  as  would  have  been  most  natural,  if  it 
had  been  intended  to  conform  precisely  to  the  season. 
The  statement  is  not  that  the  feast  will  be  held  as 
soon  as  they  have  finished  reaping  their  corn,  but  a 
given  number  of  weeks  from  the  time  of  beginning, 
irrespective  of  any  variations  in  the  actual  duration 
of  the  harvest  in  different  years. 

George^  says  on  this  point :  "  It  would  have  been 
the  most  natural  for  it  to  have  coincided  with  the 
end  of  work  in  harvest,  and  so  have  come  earlier  or 
later,  according  as  this  was  accomplished  more  quickly 
or  more  slowly.  We  must,  therefore,  assume  that 
there  was  originally  an  indefinite  interval  between  the 
two  feasts ;  but  all  authorities  fail  us  in  this  matter, 
and  so  nothing  definite  can  be  established  in  regard 
to  it.  So  far  as  we  can  follow  it,  we  always  find  a 
fixed  time  between  the  two  feasts,  the  injunction  be- 
ing that  it  should  be  celebrated  seven  full  weeks  after 
the  Passover ;  and  from  this  it  even  derived  its  name, 
*  the  feast  of  Weeks.' "  What  the  critic  assumes, 
merely  upon  the  strength  of  his  own  hypothesis  and 
confessedly  without  evidence,  is  of  no  weight  as  an 
argument. 

2.  This  mode  of  estimating  the  proper  time  for 
the  celebration  of  the  feast  occurs  in  Deuteronomy, 
which  steadfastly  insists  on  all  the  feasts  being  ob- 
served at  the  common  sanctuary.  That  being  the 
case,  its  time  must  have  been  determined  by  some 
rule  which  all  could  apply  alike.     As  the  time  of  be* 

'  "  Die  alteren  Judischen  Feste,"  p.  259. 


26o  THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS. 

ginning  to  reap  the  harvest  differed  considerably  in 
different  parts  of  the  land,  some  definite  point  of  be- 
ginning for  the  seven  weeks  must  be  here  referred  to, 
which  all  could  ascertain,  or  pilgrims  would  come 
straggling  in  at  different  times,  and  there  would  be 
no  festival  held  by  all  in  common. 

3.  We  are  consequently  thrown  upon  the  language 
of  other  laws  to  relieve  if  possible  the  vagueness  of 
the  expression  when  "  thou  beginnest  to  put  the 
sickle  to  the  corn."  In  Num.  28  :  26  it  is  also  vaguely 
stated  as  *  in  your  weeks  ';  i.  c,  in  your  feast  of  Weeks, 
implying  some  determinate  mode  of  reckoning  them, 
which  was  well  known,  and  which  it  was  not  thought 
necessary  here  to  repeat.  The  missing  information 
is  supplied.  Lev.  23:15,  that  the  seven  weeks  were 
to  be  reckoned  from  the  day  of  bringing  the  sheaf  of 
the  wave-offering,  which  was  upon  a  definite  day  of 
the  Passover  feast,  "  declared  in  the  law  to  be  on  the 
morrow  after  the  Sabbath."  There  is  scarcely  any 
point  in  the  ritual  that  has  been  more  disputed  than 
the  meaning  of  this  expression. 

George,',  contends  that  the  whole  passage  respect- 
ing the  sheaf  of  firstiOiits  and  the  feast  of  Weeks, 
vs.  9-22,  is  a  fragment  derived  from  some  other 
source  and  inserted  by  the  author  of  Lev.  23,  be- 
cause it  suited  his  purpose.  It  is,  he  says,  quite 
distinct  in  character  from  the  rest  of  the  chapter,  and 
does  not  deal  in  the  same  phrases  and  expressions  or 
ideas.  It  describes  in  minute  detail  the  sacrifices  to 
be  offered,  while  the  rest  of  the  chapter  is  occupied 
with  feasts  and  feast  days  and  the  mode  of  their  ob- 

*  "  Die  Ultcren  Judischen  Feste,"  pp.  124  ff. 


THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS.  261 

servance,  specifying  fixed  dates  in  each  case  which 
are  not  given  in  this  passage ;  moreover  its  closing 
verse  relates  to  the  care  of  the  poor,  which  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  feasts.  On  these  grounds  he  con- 
cludes that  it  had  originally  stood  in  quite  a  different 
connection  ;  and  that  consequently  it  is  out  of  all 
relation  to  the  preceding  part  of  the  chapter  and  can 
not  properly  be  explained  by  it,  but  must  be  inter- 
preted by  itself.  He  further  argues  that  the  word 
*  Sabbath '  here  employed  can  from  its  usage  mean 
nothing  but  the  weekly  Sabbath ;  that  counting 
seven  Sabbaths  can  not  be  equivalent  to  seven  weeks 
unless  these  be  weeks  ending  in  and  limited  by  Sab- 
baths ;  and  especially  the  phrase  "  the  morrow  after 
the  seventh  Sabbath,"  ver.  16,  compels  to  the  con- 
clusion that  *  Sabbath '  is  here  used  in  its  strict  and 
only  authorized  sense. 

He  hence  concludes  that  the  Sabbath  here  spoken 
of  is  an  ordinary  weekly  Sabbath,  immediately  pre- 
ceding the  harvest,  which  he  thinks  would  naturally 
begin  with  the  week.  On  this  first  day  of  harvest, 
then,  which  is  likewise  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Passover,  but  is  simply 
determined  by  the  time  when  "  ye  shall  reap  the  har- 
vest," ver.  10,  the  sheaf  of  first-fruits  was  presented. 
From  this  seven  Sabbaths  more  were  to  be  numbered, 
and  on  the  next  day,  which  would  again  be  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  Pentecost  was  to  be  celebrated.  It 
is  obvious  to  remark  that  upon  this  showing  no  fixed 
date  is  assigned  to  Pentecost  here  '  or  anywhere  else 

'  Unless  it  is  claimed  that  the  author  of  Lev.  23  intended  that  '  the 
Sabbath'  should  in  the  connection  in  which  he  placed  it  find  its  ex- 


262  THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS. 

in  the  Pentateuch  ;  and  there  is  no  development  what- 
ever in  this  respect  in  the  Mosaic  laws.  The  definite 
determination  of  the  date,  as  we  find  it  subsequently 
in  Josephus  and  in  the  New  Testament,  arose  from 
a  misinterpretation  of  the  law,  and  of  course  can  not 
be  cited  to  prove  that  the  laws  themselves  represent 
the  feasts  at  different  stages  of  their  growth  and 
hence  are  to  be  attributed  to  distinct  periods. 

The  passage,  which  George  in  common  with  Hup- 
feld  and  Wellhausen  regards  as  a  fragment  inserted 
in  this  chapter  from  another  quarter,  is  nevertheless 
a  constituent  part  of  it.     For, 

1,  If  this  paragraph,  vs.  9-22,  were  excluded  from 
the  chapter,  it  would  gjve  no  account  of  the  feast  of 
Weeks  whatever,  which  necessarily  belongs  in  a  com- 
plete conspectus  of  the  feasts  and  is  included  in  every 
other  feast  law. 

2.  The  minute  account  given  of  the  special  services 
of 'this  day  and  of  the  presentation  of  the  sheaf  at  the 
beginning  of  harvest,  which  is  urged  as  a  reason  for 
its  belonging  elsewhere,  is,  on  the  contrary,  an  indica- 
tion of  the  consistent  plan  pursued  by  the  writer. 
He  had  given  full  details  of  the  mode  of  observing 
the  Passover  in  Ex.  12,  13,  and  of  the  day  of  Atone- 
ment in  Lev.  16.  These  consequently  can  be  passed 
over  in  a  few  general  sentences.  But  he  had  said 
nothing  whatever  of  the  ritual  of  the  harvest-feast, 
nor  of  the  mode  of  celebrating  the  feast  of  Taber- 

planation  in  the  Passover  of  the  preceding  paragraph  ;  in  which 
case  the  proof  to  be  furaished  that  vs.  9-22  originally  belong  to 
this  chapter  nevertheless  annuls  the  supposed  evidence  of  a  change 
VI  the  time  of  the  feast. 


THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS.  263 

nacles.  Upon  these  two  points,  therefore,  he  dwells 
at  large.  And  the  fact  that  he  does  so,  instead  of 
creating  the  suspicion  that  these  passages  are  bor- 
rowed from  another  source,  strengthens  the  con- 
viction  that  there  is  but  one  and  the  same  writer 
throughout. 

3.  The  striking  resemblance  in  phraseology  and 
fomi_of  thought  between  this  passage  and  ch.  25 
which  is  plainly  a  continuation^,  cli.  2^,  and  is  by 
the  critics  referred  to  the  same  author,  shows  that 
they  must  be  by  one  writer,  and  consequently  that 
the  passage  in  question  belongs  properly  in  the  con- 
text in  which  it  is  found.  Both  begin  in  the  same 
identical  terms,  23  19,  10,  25  :  I,  2,  "And  the  LORD 
spake  unto  Moses  saying,  Speak  unto  the  children 
of  Israel  and  say  unto  them,"  etc.  And  then  the 
remarkable  correspondence  of  .the_  harvest  term  of 
fifty  days,  23  :  15,  16,  \\ath  the  xuMl^e  term  of  fifty 
years,  25  : 8,  numbering  seven  Sabbaths  until  the 
morrow  after  the  Sabbath  in  one  case  and  seven 
Sabbaths  of  years  unto  the  following  year  in  the 
other ;  the  one  an  acknowledgment  of  God's  owner- 
ship of  the  harvest  by  presenting  unto  him  fixst..th£ 
sheaf  and  then  the  loaves  .of.  the  Erst-fruits  ;  the  other 
an  acknowledgrn^nt  of  God's  ownership  of  the  land 
by  surrendering  to  him  the  whole  of  its  produce  in 
the  Sabbatical  year  and  the  land  itself  for  redistribu- 
tion in  the  year  of  Jubilee.  These  must  have  sprung 
from  the  same  mind  and  the  same  thought,  and  the 
very  terms  of  expression  are  the  same.  All  vouches 
for  identity  of  authorship. 

4.  Num.,  ch.  28,  29,  is  evidently  based  on  Lev.  23  • 


264  THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS. 

and  Num.  28  :  26  plainly  alludes  to  the  contents  o! 
Lev.  23  :  15  ff.  and  would  be  unintelligible  without  it, 
thus  freshly  showing  that  it  is  in  its  proper  place. 

;.  Lev.  2^  :  22,  which  is  specially  objected  to,  is 
but  a  repetition  0(^19  :  9^  10,  which  is  here  introduced 
again  by  a  very  natural  association. 

This  passage  can  not,  therefore,  with  George  be 
torn  from  its  proper  connection.  The  phrase  which 
we  are  considering,  "  on  the  morrow  after  the  Sab- 
bath," must  find  its  explanation  in  what  had  just  be- 
fore been  said  in  relation  to  the  Passover.  Hitzig ' 
proposes  to  explain  it  thus  in  his  own  peculiar  way. 
He  claims  that  according  to  Hebrew  reckoning  the 
first  day  of  the  year  was  not  only  the  first  day  of  the 
first  month,  but  the  first  day  of  the  week  likewise,  so 
that  the  seventh  day  of  the  first  month  was  always 
a  Sabbath.  Accordingly  Ezekiel  45  :  20  appoints  a 
special  sacrificial  service  for  that  day.  The  four- 
teenth day,  on  which  the  Passover  was  slain,  would 
likewise  be  a  Sabbath.  And  as  the  fifteenth  or  first 
day  of  Unleavened  Bread  was  required  to  be  hallowed 
by  abstinence  from  labor  and  by  a  holy  convocation, 
two  Sabbaths  here  came  together,  a  weekly  Sabbath 
and  a  festive  Sabbath,  and  this,  in  his  opinion,  was 
the  reason  why  the  paschal  lamb  was  to  be  slain  "  be- 
tween the  evenings,"  in  that  doubtful  interval  which 
in  strictness  belonged  to  neither  of  these  holy  days, 
but  lay  between  them.  Deuteronomy,  however, 
which  does  not  attach  the  feasts  to  particular  days 
of  the  month  or  week,  drops  this  peculiar  expression 
and  directs  the  lamb  to  be  slain  '*  at  even,  at  the  go. 

*  "  Ostern  und  Pfingsten,"  1837. 


THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS.  265 

ing  down  of  the  sun."  They  were  enjoined  at  the 
Passover  feast  to  eat  unleavened  bread  seven  days ; 
the  seventh  was  a  holy  convocation,  and  servile  work 
was  forbidden  ;  then  on  the  "  morrow  after  the  Sab- 
bath "  they  might  eat  bread,  Lev.  23  :  14,  i.  e.,  ordi- 
nary or  leavened  bread.  This  seventh  day  of  the 
feast,  which  would  be  the  twenty-first  of  the  month, 
and  the  Sabbath  referred  to  are,  therefore,  identical. 
From  this  the  reckoning  is  made  to  Pentecost,  which 
as  the  day  after  the  seventh  Sabbath,  would  invari- 
ably be  the  first  day  of  the  week.  Josephus  (Antiq. 
xiii.,  8,  4)  mentions  that  in  the  Parthian  war  Pentecost 
occurred  the  day  after  the  Sabbath,  and  this  account- 
ed for  a  two  days'  rest  of  the  army.  How,  he  asks, 
could  Josephus  know  this  to  be  a  fact  or  express  him- 
self about  it  as  he  does,  unless  Pentecost  always  oc- 
curred on  the  day  after  the  Jewish  Sabbath  ?  On 
this  basis  he  further  undertakes  to  explain  the  puz- 
zling expression  in  Luke  6  :  i,  "  the  second-first  Sab- 
bath," by  which  he  understands  the  first  day  of 
Unleavened  Bread.  By  his  hypothesis  it  always  came 
after  a  weekly  Sabbath,  and  thus  was  itself  a  second 
Sabbath ;  while  at  the  same  time  in  relation  to  the 
seventh  day  of  the  feast,  which  was  also  a  Sabbath, 
it  was  the  first.  It  was  second  in  one  respect,  and  first 
in  another,  and  thus  a  second-first  Sabbath. 

Hitzig  makes  the  sheaf  of  first-fruits  to  be  presented 
on  the  twenty-second  of  the  month,  which  is  entirely 
Quiside_of  the  limits  of  the  sacred  festival.  And  with 
him   Kayser  '  ae^rees.      KnobeParTa'^'TCurtz  *  seek  ^o 


*  "Das  Vorexilische  Buch,"  p.  74. 

'  "Alttestamentliche  Opfercultus,"  p.  308  f. 


266  THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS. 

correct  this,  while  accepting  the  hypothesis  in  othef 
respects,  by  placing  it  a  week  earlier.  They  suppose 
the  Sabbath  intended  to  be  the  fourteenth  of  the 
month,  and  that  the  sheaf  was  presented  on  the 
fifteenth  or  the  first  day  of  Unleavened  Bread. 

This  hypothesis,  however  modified,  is  wrecked  by 
its  unsupported  and  untenable  assumption  that  the 
first  day  of  the  year  was  invariably  the  first  day  of 
the  week.  This  would  always  leave  a  broken  week 
at  the  end  of  the  year  and  be  inconsistent  with  the 
fourth  commandment.  It  is  inconsistent  also  with 
Ex.  12  :  1 6,  Lev.  23  :  8  ;  for  although  the  seventh  day 
of  Unleavened  Bread  by  this  hypothesis  was  a  weekly 
Sabbath  only  servile  work  was  forbidden  and  certain 
kinds  of  work  were  allowed. 

According  to  the  Baithusians  '  or  Karaites  the  Sab- 
bath in  question  is  ''  the  Sabbath  of  the  creation,"  or 
the  regular  weekly  Sabbath,  occurring  during  the 
feast,  on  whichever  day  of  Unleavened  Bread  it  may 
fall ;  and  to  this  Wellhausen '  and  Dillmann  give 
their  adhesion  as  most  consistent  with  the  language 
employed.  But  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  the  presen- 
tation of  the  sheaf  should  be  regulated  by  the  weekly 
Sabbath,  with  which  it  has  no  obvious  connection, 
while  there  would  be  a  natural  propriety  in  having 
the  ceremony  take  place  at  one  particular  period  in 
the  festival.  It  is  also  liable  to  the  objection  that 
whenever  the  Sabbath  occurred  on  the  last  day  of 
Unleavened  Bread  the  sheaf  of  first-fruits  would  not 
be  presented  until  after  the  feast  had  ended. 

*  Lightfoot,  "Hebrew  and  Talmudical  Exercitations "  on  Luke 
6  :  I  and  Acts  2  :  i. 

•  "Zeitschrift  fiir  Deutsche  Theologie,"  XXII.,  p.  433, 


THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS.  267 

The  traditional  interpretation,  which  is  certainly 
as  old  as  the  Septuagint,  and  is  besides  vouched  for 
by  Josephus  and  Philo  and  the  usage  of  the  second 
temple,  understands  by  the  '■  Sabbath '  the_fiTst__d^ 
of  Unleavened  Bread,  whichwas  observed  as__a  festal 
Sabbath ;  according  to  this  the  sheaf  was  presented 
on  the  second  day  of  the  feast.  And  with  this  agrees 
Josh.  5:11,  which  informs  us  that  the  children  of 
Israel  after  partaking  of  the  Passover  at  Gilgal  "  did 
eat  of  the  produce  of  the  land  on  the  morrow  after 
the  Passover,  unleavened  bread  and  parched  corn  on 
the  self-same  day."  The  reference  to  the  Passover- 
law  here  is  plain  ;  and  it  is  evident  that  the  people 
governed  themselves  by  its  directions.  They  kept 
the  Passover  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month  at 
even,  precisely  as  the  law  required,  Lev.  23  :  5.  They 
had  previously  circumcised  all  those  who  had  not 
received  this  rite  in  the  wilderness,  in  obedience  to 
the  statute,  Ex.  12  :  48,  that  ''  no  uncircumcised  per- 
son shall  eat  thereof."  The  bread  which  they  ate 
was  unleavened  agreeably  to  the  command.  Lev.  23  :6. 
It  was  then  "  the  time  of  harvest,"  Josh.  3  :  i5j  but 
they  had  refrained  from  eating  of  the  productions  of 
the  country  until  '^  the  morrow  after  the  Passover," 
when  they  freely  partook  of  them  "•  on  the  self-same 
day."  Clearly  this  is  their  interpretation  of  the  law, 
Lev.  23  :  14,  which  forbade  their  eating  "■  bread  or 
parched  corn  or  green  ears  until  the  self-same  day" 
that  they  brought  their  offering  of  the  sheaf  "  on  the 
rnorrow_aiter  the  Sabbath."  "  The  morrow  after  the 
Sabbath  "  in  the  law  is  thus  defined  by  the  practice 
of  the  generation  that  entered  Canaan  under  Joshua 
to  mean  "  the  morrow  after  the  .Passover." 


268  THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS. 

But,  say  Kurtz  and  Knobel,  they  ate  the  Passove! 
on  the  fourteenth  day  at  even ;  the  morrow  after  the 
Passover  must,  as  in  Num.  33  :  3,  where  the  identical 
expression  is  employed,  have  been  the  fifteenth,  or 
the  first  day  of  Unleavened  Bread,  which  according 
to  tradition  is  the  Sabbath  referred  to  in  the  law  and 
not  the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath,  which  was  the 
following  day,  the  sixteenth  of  the  month.  This 
difficulty  appears  to  have  embarrassed  the  translators 
of  the  Authorized  Version,'  who  lest  the  children  of 
Israel  might  here  seem  to  have  eaten  of  the  new  har- 
vest a  day  sooner  than  the  law  allowed,  have  rendered 
"  the  old  corn  of  the  land,"  where  the  original  has 
simply  ''  produce,"  with  evident  allusion  to  the  crop 
then  just  reaped. 

But  all  the  trouble  arises  from  the  ambiguity  of  the 
phrase.  ''Beyond  Jordan  "  may  denote  either  side  of 
the  river  according  as  it  is  "beyond  Jordan  eastward," 
Josh.  I  :  15,  or  "beyond  Jordan  westward,"  5  :  i. 
A  person  who  shortly  after  midnight  of  Tuesday 
should  speak  of  "  to-morrow "  might  mean  by  it 
Wednesday,  inasmuch  as  daylight  had  not  yet 
broken,  or  he  might  mean  Thursday,  as  by  civil 
reckoning  Wednesday  had  already  begun.  In  certain 
portions  of  New  England  it  was  formerly  the  usage 
to  regard  the  Sabbath  as  beginning  at  sunset  of  Sat- 
urday. All  secular  occupations  and  amusements 
terminated  then,  the  holy  day  of  rest  continuing  until 
the  following  sunset,  which  ushered  in  Monday  and 
with  it  the  transition  to  secular  time.     It  is  easy  to 

'  The  British  Revisers  have  likewise  retained  '  old  corn '  in  the 
text,  for  which  the  appendix  substitutes  'produce.' 


THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS.  265 

perceive  the  ambiguity  which  might  exist  in  the  use 
of  the  word  *  to-morrow '  under  these  circumstances 
In  the  shades  of  evening  after  the  Sabbath  had  be- 
gun, it  might  mean  the  day  succeeding  the  Sabbath, 
i.  e.y  Monday,  or  the  day  succeeding  the  night  upon 
which  they  had  just  entered,  i.  e.,  Sunday.  We  are 
sensible  of  precisely  the  same  ambiguity  in  the  phrase 
**next  week"  uttered  on  Sunday  morning;  the  secu- 
lar portion  of  the  week  not  having  yet  begun,  the 
reference  may  be  to  the  days  which  immediately  fol- 
low ;  or  as  in  strict  reckoning  the  new  week  has  com- 
menced already,  the  period  intended  may  be  seven 
days  later.  So  the  Passover  was  celebrated  on  the 
evening  of  the  fourteenth  ;  but  that  evening  was  the 
beginning  of  another  day  which  continued  until  the  fol- 
lowing evening,  and  '  the  morrow  after  the  Passover  ' 
may  mean  the  fifteenth,  as  it  does  in  Num.  33  :  3  ; 
but  it  may  with  equal  propriety  denote  the  sixteenth 
of  the  month,  as  it  does  in  Josh.  5:11,  which  is  in 
perfect  consistency  with  the  law  as  traditionally  ex- 
plained, and  requires  no  forced  interpretation  or  fan- 
ciful and  unfounded  hypothesis. 

But  can  the  first  day  of  Unleavened  Bread  merely 
from  the  fact  that  all  servile  work  is  forbidden  and  a 
holy  convocation  required,  be  called  a  "  Sabbath  "  as 
the  term  is  here  used  without  qualification  ?  We  are 
told  that  a  festal  day  of  rest  might  be  called  a  Sab- 
bathon  or  a  Sabbath  Sabbathon,  but  not  simply  a  Sab- 
bath. But  in  this  very  chapter,  Lev.  23  :  32,  we  read 
of  the  day  of  Atonement  :  "  It  shall  be  unto  you  a 
Sabbath  Sabbathon;  ....  from  even  unto  even  shall 
ye  celebrate  your  Sabbath."     The  Sabbatical  year  is 


270 


THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS, 


called  a  Sabbat hon,  Lev.  25  :  5,  a  Sabbath  Sabbathon, 
25  :4,  and  repeatedly  a  Sabbath,  25  :  2,  4,  6,  8,  26: 
34,  35,  43.  The  weekly  Sabbath  is  called  Sabbat hon 
Sabbath,  Ex.  16:23,  and  Sabbath.  Sabbathon,  Ex. 
32  :  15,  35  :  2,  Lev.  23  :  3,  as  well  as  Sabbath.  The 
predominant  application  of  Sabbathon  to  festival  days 
of  rest,  Lev.  16:31,  23:24,  39,  is  no  bar,  therefore, 
to  giving  them  the  denomination  of  Sabbath,  with 
which  it  would  seem  to  be  convertible. 

But  as  both  the  first  and  seventh  days  of  Unleaven- 
ed Bread  were  observed  as  Sabbaths,  Kliefoth '  con- 
tends that  the  latter,  ver.  8,  must  be  meant  in  Lev. 
23  :  II,  rather  than  the  former,  ver.  7,  which  is  more 
remote.  And  Hupfeld'adds  that  on  the  traditional 
interpretation  the  harvest  would  fall  within  the  term 
of  the  feast  and  the  permission  to  eat  of  the  new 
grain  would  conflict  with  the  prohibition  of  leaven. 
But  the  superior  prominence  of  the  first  day  on  which 
the  whole  festival  was  founded,  makes  it  emphatically 
the  Sabbath.  The  most  obvious  explanation  of  the 
permission  to  return  home  on  the  day  after  the  Pass- 
over is  the  ripened  harvest.  Permitted  absence  from 
the  ceremonial  of  the  sheaf,  which  Kurtz  thinks  im- 
possible, is  as  easily  explicable  as  from  the  holy  con- 
vocation ;  while  the  postponement  of  the  ceremony 
till  after  the  end  of  the  feast  would  be  incongruous. 
The  prohibition  to  eat  bread  of  the  new  harvest  be- 
fore the  feast,  which  might  be  possible  in  some  years, 
certainly  gives  no  sanction  to  the  use  of  leaven  after 
the  feast  had  begun,  comp.  Josh.  5:11. 

^  "Die  urspriingliche  Gottesdienstordnung,"  I.,  p.  146. 

'  "De  primitiva  et  vera  festorum  ratione,"  Part  2,  p.  4. 


THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS.  2J\ 

That  the  Hebrew  word  *  Sabbath  '  may  be  used 
in  the  sense  of  '  week  *  may  be  argued  apart  from 
this  passage,  from  its  having  this  meaning  in  Chaldee, 
Syriac,  and  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  Luke 
i8  :  12.  *  I  fast  twice  in  the  week '  {dii  rov  ffa/Sfiarov), 
and  Mat.  28  :  i,  where  both  meanings  occur  together 
in  the  same  verse,  "  In  the  end  of  the  Sabbath  as  it 
began  to  dawn  toward  the  first  day  of  the  week."  * 
And  it  may  be  further  illustrated  by  the  word  "©^n 
which,  though  primarily  denoting  *  new  moon,*  is 
used  not  only  of  the  interval  from  one  new  moon 
to  another,  but  of  a  month  at  whatever  time  it  may 
begin.  Counting  seven  Sabbaths  is  therefore  equiva- 
lent to  counting  seven  weeks ;  and  the  morrow  after 
the  seventh  Sabbath  is  the  same  as  the  next  day  after 
the  seventh  week. 

Lightfoot"  explains  the  devrepOTtpc^rcp  of  Luke  6 :  i 
as  not  *the  second  Sabbath  after  the  first,'  but  *the 
first  Sabbath  after  the  second,'  i.  e.,  the  first  of  the 
seven  Sabbaths  following  the  second  day  of  Unleav- 
ened Bread,  from  which  the  fifty  days  to  Pentecost 
were  counted. 

The  *  morrow  after  the  Sabbath '  on  which  the  sheaf 
was  waved  before  the  LORD,  Lev.  23  :  i  r,  only  defines 
more  precisely  what  is  stated  in  general  terms  in 
Deut.  16 : 9,  as  beginning  to  put  the  sickle  to  the  corn. 
The  very  same  time  is  intended  in  either  case ;  no 
change  had  occurred  in  the  period  of  the  festival. 

And  no  change  took  place  in  its  duration.  Men- 
tion is  indeed  made  in  later  times  in  the  period  of 

*  'Qhbl  Se  aa(3f3dTuv,  r?)  eirKjXjjcKovoy  etf  juiav  oafSBdruv, 
•**  Exercitations  "  on  Mat.  12  :  i. 


2/2  THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS. 

the  dispersion  that  Jews  remote  from  Palestine  ob- 
served two  days  instead  of  one,  from  their  uncertainty 
which  was  the  real  day,  the  calendar  being  regulated 
by  the  appearance  of  the  new  moon  at  Jerusalem. 
This  can  not  be  adduced,  therefore,  in  proof  of  a  tend- 
ency to  prolong  festivals ;  besides  it  is  foreign  to  the 
subject  before  us,  as  it  belongs  wholly  to  post-biblical 
times. 

Nor  can  any  change  be  shown  to  have  taken  place^ 
in  the  ritual.  Ex.  23  :  19  and  34:  26  connect  with  it 
the  oblation  of  first-fruits.  Deut.  16:  10  f.  directs  the 
bringing  of  a  free-will  offering  to  the  LORD  accom- 
panied by  a  joyful  feast.  Lev.  23:i6ff.  prescribes 
the  wave-offering  of  the  two  loaves  with  accompany- 
ing sacrifices, — not,  as  George  interprets  it,  two  loaves 
from  every  house,  which,  it  has  been  well  said,  the 
priests  would  never  have  been  able  to  consume,  but 
two  loaves  such  as  were  in  ordinary  use  in  their  houses 
in  the  name  of  the  whole  people.  Num.  28  :  26  f.  or- 
dains the  proper  festal  offerings.  But  as  has  been 
seen  already  in  the  case  of  the  Passover,  these  do  not 
exclude,  but  supplement  each  other.  There  was  no 
transition  from  private  oblations  in  an  earlier  period 
to  public  sacrifices  at  a  later  time ;  but  the  day  was 
characterized  by  both  from  the  beginning.  The  one 
class  is  definitely  prescribed  as  a  matter  of  course, 
while  the  other  is  left  to  the  pleasure  of  the  offerer. 
But  each  held  its  appropriate  place,  and  neither  was 
permitted  to  override  the  other. 

The  discrepancy  which  has  been  alleged  between 
the  sacrifices  enjoined  upon  this  day  in  Lev.  23  and 
Num.  28  does  not  exist ;  for  they  are  quite  distinct 


THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS.  273 

in  design  and  character,  and  both  were  offered.  The 
one  is  a  simple  accompaniment  of  the  loaves,  and  fof 
that  reason  only  is  stated  in  Lev.  23,  which  does  not 
in  any  case  name  the  proper  festal  offerings.  These 
latter  are  given  in  Num.  28,  which  prescribes  the  offer- 
ing for  this  feast-day  as  such ;  and  it  is  precisely  iden- 
tical with  that  which  is  enjoined  for  each  day  of  Un- 
leavened Bread. 

Neither  was  there  a  transfer  of  this  feast  from  local 
sanctuaries  to  one  central  place  of  worship.  The  same 
arguments  are  available  here  as  in  the  case  of  the  Pass- 
over. The  very  first  reference  to  this  feast  implies  its 
observance  at  one  locality,  and  a  centralized  worship 
generally.  Ex.  23  and  34  not  only  enjoin  three  pil- 
grimages in  the  year,  in  which  all  the  males  shall 
appear  before  the  LORD  God,  but  direct  with  spe- 
cific reference  to  this  feast:  "The  first  of  the  first- 
fruits  of  thy  land  thou  shalt  bring  into  the  house  of 
the  Lord  thy  God." 

The  appeal  to  history  to  sustain  the  critics'  hypoth- 
esis is  here  particularly  unsuccessful,  for  with  the  ex- 
ception of  Chronicles,  which  is  not  allowed  to  be  an 
authority,  except  for  the  time  when  it  was  written, 
there  is  no  mention  of  this  feast  in  the  entire  Old 
Testament  apart  from  the  Pentateuch.  We  read  in 
2  Chron.  8:  12,  13,  of  Solomon's  offering  burnt-offer- 
ings unto  the  LORD,  on  the  altar  of  the  LORD  which 
he  had  built,  besides  other  occasions,  ''  three  times  in 
the  year,  in  the  feast  of  Unleavened  Bread,  and  in 
the  feast  of  Weeks  and  in  the  feast  of  Tabernacles." 
This  is  confirmed  by  the  parallel  passage  in  I  Kin. 
9:25,"  Three  times  in  a  year  did  Solomon  offer  burnt- 
18 


274  THE  FEAST  OF  WEEICS. 

offerings  and  peace-offerings  upon  the  altar  which  he 
built  unto  the  LoRD."  Though  the  occasions  of  these 
offerings  are  not  more  particularly  specified,  their  re- 
currence thrice  in  the  year  naturally  suggests  the 
three  great  festivals.  To  admit  this,  however,  would 
be  to  confess  that  they  were  all  celebrated  at  Jeru- 
salem in  the  time  of  Solomon,  which  is  contrary  to 
the  critical  hypothesis.  Even  Ezekiel  makes  no  allu- 
sion to  the  feast  of  Weeks,  when  prescribing  a  new 
ritual,  ordaining  sacrifices,  and  giving  specific  direc- 
tions concerning  the  feasts  of  Passover  and  Taber- 
nacles. This  seemed  so  strange  and  unaccountable 
that  the  text  has  been  altered  to  the  complete  de- 
struction of  the  sense  in  order  to  introduce  it.  "  The 
Passover,  a  feast  of  seven  days,"  Ezek.  45:21,  has 
by  the  insertion  of  a  letter  been  made  to  read  "  the 
Passover,  a  feast  of  weeks  of  days";  and  the  attempt 
has  been  made  to  justify  this  reading  on  the  assump- 
tion that  the  expression  is  meant  to  embrace  both 
feasts  as  well  as  the  interval  that  lay  between  them. 
The  true  correction  is  supplied  by  a  comparison  of 
Num.  28  :  16,  17,  on  which  the  verse  in  Ezekiel  is 
manifestly  based.  Wellhausen  admits  without  hesi- 
tation that  the  feast  of  Weeks  can  not  be  here  re- 
ferred to. 

The  fact,  then,  is  that  while  the  feast  of  Weeks  is 
one  of  the  three  great  annual  festivals  ordained  in 
what  the  critics  declare  to  be  the  very  earliest  codes, 
Ex.  23  and  34,  it  is  nowhere  mentioned  in  the  history 
before  the  exile,  nor  by  any  prophet  or  psalmist,  not- 
withstanding their  allusions  to  the  joy  of  harvest  and 
Ihe  fruits  of  the  earth  and  the  first-fruits,  which  would 


THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS,  2^$ 

have  made  such  a  mention  natural.  It  is  besides 
completely  ignored  by  Ezekiel  in  his  arrangements 
for  the  worship  and  the  sanctuary.  There  is  not  even 
the  slightest  allusion  to  it  in  the  writings  after  the 
exile,  and  no  record  of  its  observance  by  Ezra  or 
the  returned  captives.  The  first  and  only  reference 
to  it  is  found  in  Chronicles,  which  the  critics  tell  us 
could  not  have  been  written  before  the  time  of  Alex- 
ander the  Great.'  The  passage  in  Chronicles  affirms 
its  observance  in  Solomon's  days ;  but  the  only  con- 
clusion that  in  the  opinion  of  the  critics  is  at  all  reli- 
able is  that  this  feast  was  observed  at  the  time  when 
this  book  was  written.  We  may  here  see  in  a  con- 
spicuous instance  the  value  of  the  argument  from 
silence,  which  plays  so  important  a  part  in  modern 
critical  reasoning.  What  becomes  of  the  confident 
assertion  that  sin-offerings  and  trespass-offerings  had 
no  existence  before  the  time  of  Ezekiel,  who  first 
proposed  them,  40 :  39,''  etc.,  and  that  the  Pentateuchal 
laws,  in  which  they  are  found,  are  thus  shown  to  be 
post-exilic  ?  Or  that  the  annual  day  of  Atonement  was 
not  even  incorporated  in  the  law  so  early  as  the  days 
of  Ezra  ?  The  feast  of  Weeks  wrests  their  main 
weapon  palpably  from  their  hands. 

And  the  law  of  development,  on  which  they  so 
strenuously  insist,  has,  as  we  have  seen,  no  application 
to  it.      Even  George  is  compelled  to  acknowledge, 

*  Wellhausen's  edition  of  Bleek's  *'  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testa, 
ment,"  p.  288. 

2  This  is  leaving  out  of  the  account  or  explaining  away  2  Kin.  12  , 
16  ;  2  Chron.  29 :  21-24  I  Ps.  40  :  6  ;  Hos.  4:8;  Isa.  53  :  10. 


276  THE  FEAST  OF  WEEKS, 

"  Ot  Lhe  Jewish  feasts  this  is  the  one  that  has  re- 
main»>(2  truest  to  its  original  mode  of  celebration,  and 
has  IV  the  course  of  time  experienced  only  a  very 
trifling  development."  It  would  have  been  mG<<  ac- 
curate V'^   ,ii'  ro  Heyelopment  at  all. 


•  VIII. 
THE   FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


-^ 


VIII. 
THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES 

THE  last  of  the  three  great  feasts,  which  closed 
the  sacred  cycle  and  terminated  the  festive  por- 
tion of  the  year  is,  in  Ex.  23  :  16,  34:  22,  denominated 
the  feast  of  Ingathering,  and  elsewhere  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles.  This,  as  its  name  denoted,  had  special, 
though  not  exclusive  relation  to  the  ingathering  of 
fruits  from  oliveyards  and  vineyards,  the  oil  and  the 
wine.  Coming  after  the  latest  products  of  the  year, 
it  fitly  commemorated  God's  goodness  in  the  whole, 
who  had  plentifully  rewarded  all  the  labors  of  the 
husbandman,  who,  Ps.  104:  14,  15,  had  brought  forth 
food  out  of  the  earth,  wine  that  maketh  glad  the 
heart  of  man,  and  oil  to  make  his  face  to  shine,  and 
bread  which  strengtheneth  man's  heart.  And  hence, 
although  the  feast  of  Weeks  was  specially  appointed 
to  express  the  grateful  joy  of  harvest,  both  the  har- 
vest and  the  vintage  are  joined  together  as  giving 
occasion  for  the  feast  that  followed.  Deut.  16:13^ 
''  Thou  shalt  observe  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  after  that 
thou  hast  gathered  in  thy  corn  and  thy  wine."  Thus 
their  occasions  of  exuberant  joy  and  worldly  gain  and 
patriotic  fervor  were  their  sacred  times,  when  they 
gathered  at  the  sanctuary  of  God  and  poured  out 
their  thankful  praise  before  him.     Their  secular  life 

(279) 


28o  THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES, 

became  thus  a  consecrated  life  ;  their  secular  joy  a  joy 
before  the  LORD.  There  was  no  severance  between 
their  daily  occupation  and  their  religious  service. 
Both  were  firmly  entwined  together,  and  Jehovah  was 
supreme  and  supremely  honored  in  both. 

Tabernacles,  as  it  was  the  concluding,  was  likewise, 
as  was  stated  in  a  preceding  lecture,  the  culminating 
festival  of  the  entire  series.  It  occurred  at  the  crown 
and  apex  of  the  year,  in  the  seventh,  which  as  such 
was  the  sabbatical  or  sacred  month  with  its  accumu- 
lation of  festivals ;  and  it  was  itself  the  climax  of  all 
that  preceded.  At  this  season,  when  grateful  glad- 
ness reached  its  highest  pitch  in  the  experience  of 
God's  lavish  bounty,  came  the  most  joyful  festival  of 
all,  to  which  the  sheaf  of  first-fruits  and  the  feast  of 
Weeks  stood  in  the  relation  of  preliminary  antece- 
dents, and  in  which  Passover  with  its  historical  remi- 
niscences was  also,  as  it  were,  absorbed,  since  grati- 
tude for  the  products  of  the  land  involved  gratitude 
to  him  who  had  delivered  them  or  their  fathers  from 
Egyptian  bondage,  and  given  them  the  land,  Deut. 
26  :  5-10.  And  it  followed  close  upon  the  annual  day 
of  Atonement,  when  the  sins  and  transgressions  of  the 
preceding  year  were  all  by  a  peculiar  and  striking 
ceremony  expiated  in  the  most  solemn  and  impressive 
manner,  and  sent  away  into  the  desert,  to  a  land  not 
inhabited,  never  to  be  remembered  or  charged  against 
them  again.  The  people  thus  purged  from  their  old 
sins  could  engage  in  this  feast  with  the  glad  sense  of 
pardon,  reconciliation  and  communion  with  God,  as 
well  as  the  experience  of  his  fav^r  shown  in  the  rich 
bounty  of  the  year. 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES.  28 1 

It  was  hence  appropriately  marked  by  the  most 
elaborate  and  profuse  sacrificial  ritual  of  all  the  festi- 
vals. And  while  the  feast  of  Weeks  lasted  but  a  sin- 
gle day,  and  while  at  the  Passover  pilgrims  were  per- 
mitted to  return  home  after  partaking  of  the  paschal 
meal  with  which  it  began,  at  Tabernacles  they  re- 
mained not  only  through  the  full  term  of  seven  days, 
but  an  eighth  day  was  added  at  the  end,  which  in 
later  times  at  least  was  reckoned  *  the  great  day  of 
the  feast,'  John  7 :  37.  The  people  lifted  to  this  rap- 
turous and  sacred  height  dispersed  to  their  homes, 
abiding  in  the  happy  consciousness  that  they  were 
the  Israel  of  the  LORD,  blessed  with  his  favor  and 
happy  in  his  service,  until  with  the  new  year  a  fresh 
series  of  sacred  festivals  began,  culminating  as  before, 
2  Chron.  7  :  10. 

As  Tabernacles  thus  outranked  all  the  other  feasts, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  it  is  oftenest  mentioned  in  the 
history.  Hupfeld  appeals  to  Lev.  23  :  39,  41,  i  Kin. 
8  :  2,  65,  12  :  32,  Ezek.  45  :  25,  Neh.  8  :  14,  as  showing 
that  it  is  spoken  of  as  '  the  feast '  by  way  of  eminence' 
He  even  maintains  that  it  was  the  one  sole  feast  in  the 
strict  and  proper  sense ;  that  the  expiatory  rites  of 
the  Passover  were  severe  and  stern,  and  the  unleavened 
bread  was  unpalatable  and  forbidding,  so  that  it 
could  not  fitly  be  called  a  feast ;  for  this  was  of  a 
joyous  nature,  as  is  shown  by  the  combination,  ''■  eat- 
ing and  drinking  and  feasting,"  i  Sam.  30 :  16.  And 
the  feast  of  Weeks  is  in  Lev.  23  :  16,  Num.  28  :  26,  not 
called  a  feast  at  all,  but  only  described  as  the  time  of 
offering  a  new  meat-offering  unto  the  Lord.  He 
thence  concludes  that  the  latter  is    not  entitled   to 


282  THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES, 

rank  as  a  separate  feast,  but  only  as  a  preliminary  an- 
tecedent to  the  proper  feast,  that  of  Tabernacles.  To 
this  it  is  a  sufficient  reply  that  Ex.  23  and  34,  and 
Deut.  16  expressly  name  three  feasts  ;  that  if  his  view 
of  the  Passover  and  Unleavened  Bread  does  not  con- 
sist with  its  being  a-  feast,  this  merely  proves  that 
view  to  be  erroneous ;  the  omission  of  the  word 
*■  feast  *  in  connection  with  the  second  festival  in  Le- 
viticus and  Numbers  is  to  be  explained  in  the  same 
way  as  the  neglect  of  Num.  28  :  26  to  define  the  period 
of  its  occurrence  ;  it  is  assumed  as  known,  having  been 
spoken  of  sufficiently  elsewhere.  And  the  passages 
in  which  Tabernacles  is  referred  to  as  '  the  feast,'  im- 
ply no  exclusiveness  or  superiority,  but  simply  denote 
it  as  the  feast  held  at  the  time  mentioned  in  the  con- 
nection, or  the  feast  which  had  before  been  spoken  of. 
The  critics  tell  us  that  Tabernacles  has  passed 
through  a  like  development  to  that  which  they  claim 
for  the  Passover.  Their  arguments  are  similar  to 
those  which  they  employ  in  the  case  of  the  other 
feasts  and  involve  the  same  fallacies.  They  convert 
the  different  aspects  of  the  festival  presented  in  dif- 
ferent laws  into  successive  stages  belonging  to  dis- 
tinct periods.  They  sunder  laws  which  are  entirely 
harmonious,  but,  as  each  has  its  own  specific  design, 
are  needed  to  complete  each  other,  and  insist  upon 
treating  them  as  separate  and  independent  statutes, 
void  of  all  mutual  relation.  We  first  find  in  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  Ex.  23,  and  its  subsequent  re- 
production, Ex.  34,  the  feasts  briefly  characterized 
and  attendance  upon  them  enjoined.  Then  in  Lev. 
23  the  days  of  rest  and  the  holy  convocations  belong- 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


283 


ing  to  each  are  enumerated,  and  some  peculiarities 
in  the  observ^ance  of  the  feasts  that  are  not  elsewhere 
mentioned.  Num.  28,  29  detail  the  public  sacrifices 
required  at  each.  In  Deut.  16  the  great  legislator, 
with  an  urgency  and  repetition  natural  in  his  farewell 
address  to  the  people,  enjoins  it  upon  them  to  observe 
the  feasts  sacredly  at  the  place  that  the  LORD  should 
choose,  bearing  their  grateful  offerings,  and  bringing 
their  needy  neighbors  to  share  their  festivities.  Al- 
though these  cohere  perfectly  together,  the  critics 
insist  upon  rending  them  apart,  and  making  each  dis- 
severed portion  stand  for  the  whole  ;  whereupon  they 
urge  that  these  are  not  identical,  which  was  obvious 
enough  from  the  first.  They  are  of  course  distinct 
injunctions,  but  they  all  belong  together  and  are 
needed  to  make  up  any  proper  view  of  the  feast  as 
observed  at  any  one  time. 

And  their  treatment  of  the  history  is  as  arbitrary 
and  unwarranted  as  their  treatment  of  the  statutes. 
It  consists  throughout  in  substituting  their  own  im- 
aginations for  facts.  Open  and  wilful  violations  of 
law  are  paraded  as  examples  of  what  was  reckoned 
lawful.  Exceptional  conduct  under  anomalous  con- 
ditions is  set  forth  as  the  normal  course  of  procedure. 
And  deviations  are  multiplied  and  exaggerated  to  an 
extent  that  has  no  existence  but  in  the  disordered 
fancy  of  the  critic.  Historical  testimonies  are  credited 
or  set  aside  at  pleasure,  and  well-attested  documents 
are  freely  manipulated.  So  with  facts  manufactured 
and  authorities  doctored  to  suit  themselves  they 
claim  to  have  made  out  their  point,  when  the  whole 
thing  is  mere  fancy  from  beginning  to  end. 


284  ^^^  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 

Thus,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  claimed  that  the  char- 
acter  and  design  of  the  feast  underwent  serious 
changes.  George  *  tells  us  that  the  vintage  feast  was 
adopted  by  Israel  from  the  Canaanites,  and  was  at 
first  purely  a  sensuous  feast  with  music  and  dancing, 
while  the  spirits  were  exhilarated  with  new  wine.  To 
this  a  religious  element  was  soon  added.  As  the 
Canaanites  trode  the  grapes  and  went  into  the  house 
of  their  god  and  did  eat  and  drink,  Judg.  9  :  27,  so 
doubtless  did  the  Israelites.  The  first  of  their  oil 
and  their  new  wine  was  brought  to  God,  and  served 
to  enliven  a  joyful  meal,  of  which  the  whole  house- 
hold partook  along  with  the  Levite,  the  stranger,  the 
fatherless  and  the  widow,  Deut.  14  :  23  ;  16:  14.  Sub- 
sequently with  the  removal  of  its  observance  to  a 
central  sanctuary,  it  lost  its  original  character,  the 
first-fruits  of  oil  and  of  wine  became  a  perquisite  of  the 
priests,  the  joyful  meals  were  abandoned  and  from  a 
proper  vintage  feast  it  became  one  of  general  thanks- 
giving. Finally,  it  was  changed  still  further  by  being 
dissociated  from  its  agricultural  meaning,  and  assum- 
ing a  historical  signification ;  the  huts,  which  the 
whole  population  occupied  during  the  vintage  season, 
being  separated  from  their  original  occasion,  were 
supposed  to  commemorate  the  march  through  the 
wilderness,  Lev.  23  :  43. 

It  is  plain  that  all  this  is  spun  out  of  the  critic's 
own  brain.  The  vintage  feasts  of  the  ancient  world 
generally  were  of  a  religious  character ;  and  that  one 
ever  existed  in  Israel  destitute  of  any  religious  ele- 
ment is  pure  a  priori  theory.  To  assume  that  it  was 
'  "Die  alteren  Judischen  Feste,"  p.  276 f. 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES.  285 

borrowed  by  Israel  from  the  Canaanites,  is  to  assume 
without  evidence  and  in  the  face  of  all  the  proof  to 
the  contrary,  that  Moses  gave  Israel  no  laws  what- 
ever relating  to  religious  observances.  For  in  both 
the  most  ancient  codes,  as  the  critics  regard  them, 
which  are  attributed  to  him  and  expressly  declared 
to  have  been  written  by  him,  attendance  upon  the 
three  annual  feasts  is  almost  the  sole  religious  duty 
enjoined.  Parallels  are  so  numerous  in  the  ancient 
world  that  sacrifices  might  as  well  be  said  to  have 
been  borrowed  from  the  Canaanites  as  the  feasts. 
And  upon  this  ground  alone  the  great  body  even  of 
those  critics  who  renounce  the  historical  authority 
of  the  Pentateuch,  and  refuse  to  attribute  the  origin 
of  the  festal  system  to  Moses,  are  disposed,  as  was 
shown  at  length  in  the  second  lecture,  to  consider 
these  feasts  pre-Mosaic.  The  assertion  that  the  He- 
brews first  learned  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  after 
their  occupancy  of  Canaan  can  not  be  proved.  And 
if  it  could,  it  would  not  follow  that  Moses  could  not 
have  framed  laws  adapted  to  the  agricultural  life 
which  they  were  about  to  assume. 

That  Tabernacles  ceased  to  be  associated  with  the 
ingathering  and  came  ultimately  to  have  a  historical 
meaning  attached  to  it,  is  also  a  total  misrepresenta- 
tion. The  Passover  is  adduced  to  illustrate  a  tend- 
ency in  feasts  which  were  originally  agricultural  to 
take  on  a  historical  character.  But  it  has  before 
been  shown  that  the  Passover  was  a  commemorative 
festival  from  the  beginning.  And  that  the  law  of 
Tabernacles  given  while  Israel  was  still  camping  in 
the  desert  should  link  the  booths  of  the  vintage  in  a 


286  THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES, 

subordinate  way  with  the  march  through  the  wilder- 
ness to  the  goodly  land  of  Canaan,  involves  no  such 
gross  misunderstanding  as  the  critics  affirm.  So  that 
we  may  dismiss  without  further  remark  the  three 
counts  in  Hupfeld's  indictment,  that  the  children  of 
Israel  in  the  wilderness  dwelt  not  in  booths,  but  in 
tents ;  that  carrying  branches  with  leaves  and  fruit 
from  the  noblest  trees  stands  in  no  relation  to  it ;  and 
that  the  most  joyful  feast  of  the  year  can  not  com- 
memorate the  penalty  of  living  in  the  inhospitable 
desert.  The  law  is  not  expounding  the  origin  of  the 
booths  or  their  primary  signification,  but  attaching  to 
them  an  additional  and  not  very  remote  association. 

Again,  the  attempt  is  made  to  show  that  there 
were  changes  in_th_e  time  of  the  celebration  of  thi^ 
feast.  It  is  alleged  that,  in  the  first  instance,  it  varied 
with  the  time  of  the  vintage.;  and  George  '  conjectures 
that  its  duration  was  fixed  at  seven  days,  because 
of  the  imaginary  habit  of  beginning  to  gather  the 
fruits  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  and  occupying  a 
full  week  in  the  work.  So,  as  he  says,  the  seventh 
day  should  be  a  Sabbath  as  in  the  Passover ;  only 
there  is  no  record  of  the  fact.  Dillmann  "^  is  not 
certain  whether  it  originally  lasted  seven  days ;  but 
this  must  early  have  become  the  custom,  as  appears 
from  the  feast  in  the  time  of  Solomon,  i  Kin.  8  :  65. 
And  he  thinks  it  possible  that  in  the  first  period  of 
the  settlement,  in  the  general  splitting  up  of  the  peo- 
ple, individual  places  and  towns  may  have  taken  theif 
own  course  as  to  the  time  of  observing  this   feast. 

*  Ubi  supra,  p.  278. 

^  "Die  Biicher  Exodus  und  Leviticus,"  p.  582. 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES.  287 

But  as  pilgrimages  to  a  common  sanctuary  came  into 
vogue,  it  was  fixed  at  the  period  of  the  full  moon. 
So  that  the  only  variation  in  different  districts  would 
be  between  the  seventh  and  eighth  months.  But  in 
Solomon's  time,  at  least  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  the  decision  was  in  favor  of 
the  seventh  month,  i  Kin.  12  :  32  f.  Further  it  is 
said,  that  this  feast  shared  the  general  tendency  to 
lengthen  festivals ;  a  day  was  accordingly  added  to 
it,  not  as  in  Passover  at  the  beginning,  but  at  the 
end  of  the  proper  seven  days. 

The  feast  of  ingathering  is  said,  Ex.  23  :  16,  to  be 
*'  in  the  end  of  the  year,  when  thou  hast  gathered  in 
thy  labors  out  of  the  field."  George  *  claims  that  no 
such  statement  could  have  been  made  prior  to  the 
Babylonish  exile,  as  the  Hebrew  year  originally  began 
in  the  spring.  It  implies  the  reckoning  after  the  ex- 
ile, when  the  civil  year  had  been  introduced,  begin- 
ning with  the  autumnal  equinox ;  and  as  the  vintage 
in  Palestine  was  then  finished,  this  feast  could  be 
held  before  the  close  of  the  year.  In  Ex.  34 :  22,  the 
form  of  expression  is  slightly  altered ;  "  the  feast  of 
ingathering,"  not  precisely  "  at  the  year's  end,"  as 
our  translators  have  it,  but  "■  at  the  return  of  the 
year."  This  according  to  George  most  probably  in- 
dicates a  still  later  period,  when  the  feast  had  been 
fixed  after  the  equinox  in  the  seventh  month  of  the 
ecclesiastical  year,  and  consequently  after  the  new 
civil  year  had  begun.  Hupfeld '  finds  in  the  expres. 
sion  "  the    end  of   the  year "  evidence  of  high  an 

*  Ubi  supra,  p.  1 14. 

^  "De  primitiva  festorum  ratione,"  p.  6. 


288  THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES, 

tiquity  and  a  trace  of  pre-Mosaic  reckoning,  which  in 
Ex.  34  is  changed  to  the  more  indefinite  phrase 
"  return  of  the  year,"  for  the  sake  of  conforming  to 
the  Mosaic  calendar.  Wellhausen '  maintains  that 
these  expressions  are  substantially  identical,  and  both 
point  to  the  year  beginning  in  autumn,  which  in  his 
estimation  was  the  customary  reckoning  before  the 
exile.  The  fact  is,  as  has  been  mentioned  on  a  former 
occasion,  that  there  are  clear  indications  prior  to  the 
exile  of  both  modes  of  estimating  the  year  as  be- 
ginning in  the  spring  and  as  beginning  in  the  fall.  It 
is  the  agricultural  year  that  is  here  spoken  of,  which 
ended  after  the  produce  had  all  been  stored  and  be- 
gan with  the  ploughing  and  sowing  for  the  new  crop. 
This  natural  but  somewhat  indefinite  style  of  reckon- 
ing did  not  correspond  precisely  with  the  calendar  of 
the  civil  year,  subsequently  introduced,  and  hence 
the  feast  though  occurring  in  Tisri  is  said  to  be  "  in 
the  end  of  the  year."  In  reference  to  this  Dillmann 
truly  observes,  '*  It  does  not  necessarily  follow  that 
the  day  was  not  fixed  at  the  time  of  the  author,  but 
only  that  the  general  statement  was  sufficient  for  his 
purpose."  "  Such  general  statements  were  sufficient 
in  law  books  of  the  laity ;  the  more  exact  calculation 
of  the  times  by  the  moon  and  lunar  months  was  the 
affair  of  the  priests." 

Dr.  Dillmann  reaches  his  conclusions  as  to  a  possi- 
ble variation  in  the  length  of  this  feast  and  the  time 
of  its  occurrence  by  a  careful  and  elaborate  analysis 
of  the  laws,  assigning  each  to  its  hypothetical  writer, 
who  is  assumed  to  represent  a  distinct  tradition,  each 

'  "  Geschiclue,"  I.,  p.  iii.     Prolegomena  (Eng.  Tr.),  p.  io8. 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERlSrACLES,  289 

valid  for  its  own  age,  and  the  concurrence  of  two  01 
more  upon  any  given  point  creating  a  higher  or  lower 
probability  as  to  the  facts  of  a  still  earlier  date.  The 
ingenuity,  the  learning  and  the  conscientiousness 
with  which  this  process  is  conducted  is  beyond  all 
praise.  Nevertheless,  everything  rests  on  a  primary 
assumption,  which,  to  say  the  least,  has  not  yet  been 
proved.  It  is  that  the  Pentateuchal  laws  are  not  at 
all  what  they  profess  to  be,  what  they  are  uniformly 
by  all  the  writers  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments represented  to  be,  what  they  have  always  been 
believed  to  be,  what  the  internal  evidence  upon  any 
fair  treatment  shows  that  they  must  be,  and  what 
therefore  they  have  every  reasonable  claim  to  be  re- 
garded as  being,  the  genuine  production  of  Moses. 

If  we  really  have  no  trustworthy  account  of  the 
institutions  of  Moses,  if  there  be  nothing  but  un- 
certain traditions  through  anonymous  sources,  which 
are  often  conflicting  and  which  were  not  recorded  till 
many  centuries  after  the  Mosaic  age.  Dr.  Dillmann 
has  perhaps  done  as  well  as  it  was  possible  to  do 
with  such  unsatisfactory  and  intractable  materials. 
But  his  procedure  and  his  results  depend  for  their 
justification  on  his  original  assumption.  He  puts 
into  the  critical  crucible  at  the  beginning  precisely 
what  he  brings  out  at  the  end.  These  institutions 
thus  dealt  with  are  but  the  plaything  of  the  critic's 
fancy.  He  makes  them  to  be  not  what  they  are  in 
the  record,  but  what  he  pleases  to  regard  them.  Ex. 
23  and  34  speak  in  a  general  way  of  this  feast,  but 
do  not  mention  its  duration.  Leviticus,  Numbers 
and  Deuteronomy  assign  to  it  a  term  of  seven  days. 
19 


590 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


Now  if  the  feast  laws  of  Exodus  antedate  the  others 
by  centuries,  then  we  have  no  certain  evidence  of  the 
length  of  this  feast  for  that  interval  of  time ;  and  Dr. 
Dillmann  has  some  reason  for  expressing  doubt  on 
the  subject.  But  until  the  contrary  can  be  shown  by 
irrefragable  proof  these  laws  must  be  accepted  as 
holding  to  one  another  that  intimate  mutual  relation 
which  they  claim,  which  has  always  been  accorded  to 
them,  and  which  a  fair  examination  of  them  abun- 
dantly justifies.  If  they  be  allowed  to  supplement 
and  complete  each  other,  all  doubt  vanishes  at  once, 
the  v/hole  intricacy  of  the  subject  is  removed,  and 
we  are  upon  solid  ground. 

And  there  are  no  known  facts  in  the  history  to  in- 
validate this  conclusion.  In  the  earliest  references  to 
this  feast,  which  afford  any  intimation  of  its  duration 
or  of  the  time  at  which  it  was  held,  the  agreement 
with  the  Mosaic  law  is  perfect.  In  the  reign  of  Solo- 
mon it  lasted  seven  days,  and  was  held  in  the  seventh 
month,  I  Kin.  8:  2,  65,  66,  so  that  although  the  tem- 
ple was  finished  in  the  eighth  month  of  the  preceding 
year,  6 :  38,  its  dedication  was  delayed  until  the  oc- 
currence of  this  autumnal  festival,  the  other  annual 
feasts  being  less  suitable  on  account  of  the  brief  stay 
of  the  pilgrims  at  the  sanctuary  apart  from  other  con- 
siderations. From  I  Kin.  12  :  32,  it  appears  that  it 
was  observed  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month. 
There  is  nothing  anywhere  to  imply  that  there  had 
ever  been  any  fluctuation  in  the  time.  How  far  the 
distractions  incident  to  the  imperfect  conquest  of  the 
land  or  tlic  incursions  of  foreign  foes  may  have  inter- 
fered with  the  regular  observance  of  the  law  in  early 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES.  29 1 

periods  we  do  not  know,  but  this  casts  no  doubt  upon 
the  existence  of  the  statute,  or  of  its  appointment  of 
a  fixed  time  for  the  celebration  of  the  feast.  And  it 
certainly  does  not  justify  the  inference  drawn  from 
the  arbitrary  act  of  Jeroboam.  The  historian  records 
that  Jeroboam  ordained  a  feast  in  the  eighth  month, 
on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month,  even  in  the  month 
which  he  had  devised  of  his  own  heart.  This  innova^ 
tion,  as  it  is  plainly  declared  to  be,  affords  no  ground 
even  for  the  conjecture,  much  less  for  the  assertion, 
which  has  no  support  from  any  other  quarter,  that 
the  observance  of  the  feast  prior  to  this  time,  had 
varied  in  different  sections  of  the  country  between 
the  seventh  and  eighth  months ;  much  less  is  it  any 
warrant  for  the  opinion  that  there  was  no  recognized 
statute  on  the  subject. 

Dr.  Dillmann  is  likewise  in  doubt  as  to  the  antiqui- 
ty of  the  Atsereth,  or  the  day  added  after  the  seven 
days  of  Tabernacles,  as  a  solemn  termination  to  this 
feast  or  to  all  the  festivals  of  the  year.  It  is  spoken 
of  in  Lev.  23  :  36,  39,  and  in  Num.  29  :  35,  but  not  in 
Exodus  or  Deuteronomy.  But  this  suggests  no  doubt 
of  its  Mosaic  origin,  or  of  its  being  from  the  first  a 
constituent  of  the  festal  cycle.  For  this  eighth  day 
is  plainly  shown  in  both  passages  not  to  belong  to  the 
feast  of  Tabernacles  in  its  strict  and  proper  sense. 
Lev.  23  :  34  ff.  reiterates  no  less  than  six  times  that 
the  feast  of  Tabernacles,  its  special  offerings  and  its 
dwelling  in  booths,  lasted  seven  days ;  but  it  adds 
that  the  eighth  day  was  likewise  to  be  kept  holy  and 
have  offerings  of  its  own.  And  Num.  29:  12  ff.  again 
declares  that  the  feast  lasts  seven  days,  and  proceeds 


2g2  THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES, 

to  specify  the  sacrifices  to  be  offered  during  these 
seven  days  in  a  regular  gradation  day  by  day.  An 
eighth  day  is  added,  ver.  35,  without  a  copulative  as 
uniformly  before,  and  its  sacrifices  stand  in  no  rela- 
tion to  the  preceding  and  do  not  continue  the  same 
graduated  scale.  Accordingly  it  was  not  to  be  ex- 
pected that  the  laws  of  Exodus  and  Deuteronomy, 
which  limit  themselves  to  the  three  annual  feasts, 
should  speak  of  this  day  any  more  than  of  the  feast 
of  Trumpets  or  the  day  of  Atonement.  If  Deuteron- 
omy declares  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  to  be  of  seven 
days'  duration,  Leviticus  and  Numbers  do  the  same 
with  equal  explicitness,  so  that  no  suspicion  can  arise 
of  a  change  in  the  length  of  the  feast  in  the  interval. 

Dr.  Dillmann  correctly  remarks  that  it  can  not  be 
certainly  inferred  from  i  Kin.  8  :  ()(),  that  this  eighth 
day  was  not  observed  in  Solomon's  time.  It  is  there 
stated  that  after  the  celebration  of  the  feast,  he  sent 
the  people  away  on  the  eighth  day.  According  to 
the  parallel  passage,  2  Chron.  7 : 9,  they  had  a  solemn 
assembly  on  the  8th  day  and  were  sent  away  on  the 
day  following.  The  apparent  discrepancy  is,  however, 
very  easily  reconciled.  At  the  close  of  the  solemn 
services  held  on  the  eighth  day,  Solomon  formally 
dismissed  the  people,  who  thereupon  returned  home 
the  day  after.  This  eighth  day  is  particularly  men- 
tioned in  the  observance  of  the  feast  by  Ezra  and 
Nehcmiah,  Neh.  8:18,  and  from  the  increasing  con- 
course of  pilgrims,  it  had  risen  to  great  consequence 
in  the  time  of  our  Lord,  John  7 :  37. 

It  is  further  claimed  that  a  development  can  be 
traced  in  the  mode  of  observing  the  feast  and  in  its 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES,  293 

sacrificial  ritual.  Thus  the  critics  affirm  that  Lev. 
23  :  39-43,  which  directs  the  people  to  take  the  boughs 
of  goodly  trees  and  to  dwell  in  booths,  is  plainly  a 
subsequent  addition  to  the  chapter,  which  came  to  a 
formal  close  vs.  37,  38,  and  according  to  Neh.  8:17 
this  had  not  been  observed  prior  to  the  time  of  Ne- 
hemiah.  There  is  not  a  little  divergence  of  critical 
opinion  about  the  proper  treatment  of  this  chapter  of 
Leviticus.  Wellhausen '  finds  in  it  two  distinct  feast 
laws,  which  have  been  combined  into  one  by  the  Re- 
dactor. One  consists  of  vs.  9-22,  39-44,  the  wave- 
sheaf  and  wave-loaves  and  the  supplementary  state- 
ment respecting  Tabernacles,  all  which  depart  from 
the  Elohistic  style ;  on  the  contrary  the  remainder  of 
the  chapter  is  purely  Elohistic.  Hupfeld "  throws  out 
eleven  more  verses  in  addition  to  the  preceding,  viz., 
ver.  3,  the  law  of  the  Sabbath,  and  vs.  23-32,  the  first 
and  tenth  days  of  the  seventh  month,  and  declares 
the  verses  thus  sundered  to  be  the  ones  which  are 
Elohistic  and  of  the  same  style  with  Gen.  17  and  Ex. 
12.  KnobeP  thinks  that  all  the  chapter  belongs  to 
the  Elohist  except  vs.  2,  3,  the  Sabbath  law,  vs.  18, 
19,  22,  and  vs.  39-44,  the  supplementary  passage  con- 
cerning Tabernacles,  which  were  inserted  by  the  Je- 
hovist  from  some  document  closely  approximating 
that  of  the  Elohist  in  style  and  language. 

Kayser*  makes  a  still  more  elaborate  dissection  of 
the  chapter.     He  agrees  with  Wellhausen  in  finding 

1  "  Jahrbiicher  fiir  Deutsche  Theologie,"  XXII.,  p.  431  it 
^  **  ije  vera  festorum  ratione,"  Part  II.,  pp.  7,  13. 

*  **  Die  Biicher  Exodus  und  Leviticus,"  p.  530. 

*  "  Das  vorexilische  Buch,    p.  73. 


294  ^-^-^  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES, 

two  distinct  feast  calendars  in  the  chapter,  though  he 
differs  from  him  in  details.  He  assigns  to  the  Elohist 
vs.  5-8,  \\b  the  Passover,  vs.  15^,  i6<^,  21  the  feast 
of  Weeks,  and  vs.  23-36  the  festivals  of  the  seventh 
month,  together  with  the  title  and  subscriptions  vs. 
4>  37»  3S,  44.  The  remaining  verses  are  from  a  dif- 
ferent source  and  have  special  relation  to  the  harvest, 
vs.  g-i4a  the  sheaf  of  first-fruits  at  the  beginning  of 
harvest,  vs.  15^,  i6d-20  the  new  meat-offering  of 
Pentecost  at  its  close,  ver.  22  the  prohibition  of 
gleaning,  and  vs.  39-43  Tabernacles  as  a  thanks- 
giving for  the  harvest  and  vintage.  He  is  not  sure 
whether  this  latter  calendar  ever  contained  anything 
about  the  first  day  of  the  seventh  month,  or  the  day 
of  Atonement ;  but  he  is  persuaded  that  in  its  original 
form  it  must  have  stated  the  times  of  the  several 
feasts,  as  the  seven  weeks'  interval  between  Pentecost 
and  its  predecessor  is  given,  and  Tabernacles  is  put  in 
the  seventh  month  ;  it  must,  therefore,  in  consistency 
have  mentioned  the  time  of  the  Passover.  It  is  obvi- 
ous to  suggest  to  him  that  the  very  thing  he  misses 
and  which  the  calendar  must  plainly  have  contained, 
is  here  given  as  the  chapter  stands.  It  is  only  his 
critical  hypothesis  which  has  separated  what  by  his 
own  confession  belongs  together. 

Reuss  adopts  substantially  the  same  division  ;  only 
he  separates  the  supplementary  paragraph  itself,  vs. 
39-43,  into  two  parts,  assigning  the  last  three  verses 
to  the  Elohist,  and  attaching  them  to  the  preceding 
paragraph  on  the  same  subject,  thus  virtually  giving 
up  the  whole  dispute,  so  far  at  least  as  these  verses 
are  concerned.     Kayser's   dissection  is  so  keen  that 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES.  295 

he  splits  sentences  in  two,  and  splices  the  alternate 
halves  together  into  new  sentences,  which  are  as- 
signed to  distinct  writers,  and  thus  he  obtains  a 
double  law  of  the  feast  of  Weeks.  Dillmann,  whose 
own  critical  knife  has  a  very  keen  edge  at  times,  pro- 
nounces his  division  and  that  of  Knobel  "  arbitrary 
and  impracticable."  And  he  objects  to  Wellhausen 
that  neither  of  his  feast  calendars  are  complete ;  one 
has  no  Pentecost,  and  the  other  no  feast  of  Unleav- 
ened Bread,  while  expressions,  which  all  critics  afifirm 
to  be  Elohistic,  pervade  those  sections  which  he 
slices  from  the  chapter  to  such  an  extent  that  no  as- 
sumption of  interpolations  will  meet  the  case.  In 
Dr.  Dillmann's  judgment  the  chapter  is  a  unit. 

Where  leading  critics  are  so  utterly  at  variance,  it 
might  be  presumptuous  in  an  onlooker  to  offer  an 
opinion.  But  the  chapter  certainly  has  the  appear- 
ance of  being  constructed  on  a  uniform  plan,  with  all 
its  parts  not  only  in  close  mutual  relation,  but  in  ob- 
vious relation  likewise  to  other  portions  of  the  legis- 
lation of  the  Pentateuch.  The  formula,  "And  the 
Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying,  Speak  unto  the 
children  of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them,"  is  used  four 
times,  vs.  i,  9,  23,  33,  to  introduce  the  four  principal 
sections  of  the  chapter.  There  are  two  titles  in  ver. 
2  and  ver.  4  respectively,  and  two  subscriptions,  vs.  37, 
38,  and  ver.  44,  the  last  corresponding  in  form  to  the 
first  title  and  the  opening  words,  and  thus  marking  the 
extreme  limits  of  the  entire  chapter  and  of  the  calendar 
of  sacred  times  which  it  contains.  The  first  section 
of  the  chapter  is  divided  into  two  parts  by  a  second 
title,  ver.  4,  and  the  last  section  is  also  divided  into 


296  THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 

two  parts  by  the  first  of  the  two  subscriptions,  vs.  37, 
38,  which  answers  to  the  second  title ;  and  these  em- 
brace between  them  the  core  of  the  entire  calendar, 
the  annual  festivals  so  far  as  they  stand  related  to  the 
services  of  the  sanctuary. 

Prior  to  this  central  portion  and  preceding  the  sec- 
ond title  is  the  Sabbath  law,  ver.  2,  which  had  its  holy 
convocation,  and  could  not  be  omitted  from  any  com- 
plete calendar  of  the  sacred  times,  and  yet  was  not 
one  of  the  annual  festivals,  nor  did  it  stand  in  any 
exclusive  relation  to  the  sanctuary.  It  is  described  as 
"  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  in  all  your  dwellings."  It 
belonged  appropriately  to  the  chapter,  therefore,  and 
yet  was  distinct  in  character  from  the  sacred  times 
afterward  to  be  described,  which  are  accordingly  pre- 
ceded by  a  fresh  title,  ver.  4.  In  like  manner  the 
feast  of  Tabernacles,  to  which  the  last  section  of  the 
chapter  is  devoted,  had  two  aspects,  one  of  which  had  to 
do  with  the  sanctuary,  and  the  other  not.  The  former 
is  first  described  with  its  holy  convocations  and  daily 
offerings,  and  is  immediately  followed  by  the  sub- 
scription, vs.  37,  38,  summing  up  this  portion  of  the 
chapter,  "  These  are  the  feasts  of  the  LoRD,  which 
ye  shall  proclaim  to  be  holy  convocations,  to  offer  an 
offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  LORD,"  etc.  Then 
follows  the  other  aspect  of  the  feast  in  a  special  par- 
agraph, which  could  not  properly  have  been  included 
in  the  preceding,  in  which  they  are  bidden  to  take 
boughs  of  goodly  trees  and  dwell  in  booths  during 
the  celebration  of  the  feast. 

Wcllhausen  further  complains  that  this  second  par- 
agraph, relating  to  Tabernacles,  has  been  interpolated 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES.  297 

from  the  first ;  and  he  claims  that  when  these  inter, 
polations  have  been  removed,  the  original  contrariety 
of  the  two  paragraphs  plainly  appears.  He  finds  an 
interpolation  in  the  opening  words  defining  the  time 
of  the  feast,  "  In  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  seventh 
month,"  which,  he  says,  is  inconsistent  with  what  im- 
mediately follows,  "  when  ye  have  gathered  in  the 
fruit  of  the  land."  According  to  the  former  the 
period  of  celebration  was  determined  by  the  phase  o' 
the  moon  ;  according  to  the  latter,  by  the  housing  of 
the  fruit-crop.  The  former  is,  therefore,  not  an  origi- 
nal part  of  the  text ;  and  this  paragraph  belongs  to  a 
time  when  the  feast  was  held  earlier  or  later  according 
to  the  season;  only,  as  is  stated  in  ver.  41,  it  always 
fell  somewhere  within  the  limits  of  the  seventh  month. 
But  the  alleged  contrariety  in  the  opening  clauses  of 
ver.  39  is  only  an  invincible  proof  of  the  perversity  of 
Wellhausen's  mode  of  interpretation.  This  imme- 
diate conjunction  of  a  fixed  day  of  the  month  with 
the  phrase  "  when  ye  have  gathered  in  the  fruit  of 
the  land,"  shows  in  the  clearest  possible  manner  that 
the  two  are  perfectly  consistent,  that  the  relation  of 
the  feast  to  the  ingathering  is  not  disturbed  by  the 
assignment  of  a  definite  date  ;  that  the  feast,  to  be  agri- 
cultural, need  not  be  movable  ;  and  that  the  hypothe- 
sis, that  in  consequence  of  their  agricultural  character 
they  must  at  first  have  been  movable,  and  afterward 
linked  to  determinate  days,  is  altogether  without 
foundation.  The  last  clause  of  ver.  41,'' Ye  shall 
celebrate  it  in  the  seventh  month,"  is  not  vaguely 
meant,  as  though  it  gave  intimation  that  this  should 
be  done  at  some  period  in  the  month,  but  on  no  fixed 


298  THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 

day  year  by  year  ;  nor  is  it  to  be  explained  with  Dill 
mann  as  in  tacit  contrast  with  the  eighth  month,  con- 
formably to  his  hypothesis  that  the  usage  varied  in 
different  parts  of  the  land,  but  the  legislator  decides 
for  the  seventh.  The  real  emphasis  is  on  the  num- 
ber, the  seventh,  the  sabbatical,  the  sacred  month. 
The  stress  laid  upon  this  number  appears  from  the 
fact  that  within  the  brief  compass  of  four  verses,  it  is 
stated  four  times  that  the  observance  lasted  seven 
days,  and  twice  that  it  was  in  the  seventh  month. 

Wellhausen  finds  another  interpolation  in  the  last 
clause  of  ver.  39,  '■'■  on  the  first  day  shall  be  a  Shab- 
batJwn  and  on  the  eighth  day  shall  be  a  ShabbatJion!' 
He  thinks  it  very  extraordinary  that  the  writer  should 
announce  that  the  feast  was  to  be  kept  seven  days, 
and  then  immediately  proceed  to  speak  of  the  eighth 
day  of  this  seven  days'  feast.  Throw  out  this  clause 
and  there  will  be  at  once  perceived  a  discrepancy 
between  this  and  the  preceding  paragraph.  When 
this  paragraph  was  written  the  eighth  day  had  not 
yet  been  added  to  Tabernacles,  which  is  never- 
theless spoken  of  in  ver.  36.  But  he  only  succeeds 
in  showing  that  this  paragraph  presupposes  the  pre- 
ceding, is  built  upon  it,  and  can  only  be  understood 
in  connection  with  it. 

And  the  same  thing  appears  in  other  respects  like- 
wise. In  ver.  34  this  is  called  the  feast  of  Taber- 
nacles ;  no  reason  is  given  for  the  name  that  is  here 
used  for  the  first  time.  The  feast  has  a  different 
appellation  in  Ex.  23  and  34.  This  name  does  not 
recur  in  Num.  29:  12.  It  is  found  again  in  Deut. 
16:  13,  but  with  no  hint  why  it  is  so  called.      The 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


299 


only  explanation  is  furnished  by  the  direction  to 
"dwell  in  booths"  or  tabernacles,  ver.  42.  Further, 
the  phrase,  ver.  39,  "when  ye  have  gathered  in  the 
fruit  of  the  land,"  is  a  plain  allusion  to  the  denomina- 
tion in  Exodus  "  feast  of  ingathering,"  and  marks  it 
clearly  as  an  agrarian  festival,  an  aspect  which  had 
not  been  brought  out  in  the  preceding  paragraph  ; 
hence  the  occasion  for  supplementing  it  in  this  par- 
ticular here.  Wellhausen  thinks  that  the  change  of 
name  from  feast  of  Ingathering  to  feast  of  Taber- 
nacles was  the  initial  alteration  which  paved  the  way 
for  subsequently  attributing  to  it  a  historical  instead 
of  an  agricultural  meaning.  But  this  unlucky  para- 
graph stands  in  his  way  once  more ;  for  here  we  have 
the  agricultural  and  the  historical  sense  combined 
together,  vs.  39,  43,  showing  that  both  were  held  at 
the  same  time  and  that  no  interval  was  needed  to 
pass  from  one  to  the  other. 

The  further  explanation  of  the  mode  of  observing 
Tabernacles  contained  in  this  supplementary  para- 
graph was,  moreover,  to  be  expected  from  the  plan 
of  the  chapter.  As  was  shown  in  a  former  lecture,  it 
passes  lightly  over  those  sacred  times  as  the  Passover 
and  the  day  of  Atonement,  whose  peculiar  services 
had  been  fully  explained  elsewhere  ;  it  only  alludes 
in  a  general  way  to  the  festal  sacrifices,  whose  details 
were  reserved  for  Num.  28,  29 ;  and  it  enters  into 
particulars  respecting  the  feast  of  Weeks  and  the 
accompanying  and  preceding  presentation  of  first- 
fruits,  which  had  not  been  explained  before.  This 
method  of  treatment  obviously  required  that  in  deal- 
ing with  the  third   and   greatest  feast   of  the  year 


300 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


regarding  which  no  particulars  are  given  elsewhere, 
the  general  observations  of  vs.  34-36  should  be  sup- 
plemented by  some  fuller  and  more  characteristic 
account  of  its  celebration,  such  as  is  to  be  found  in 
the  concluding  verses  of  this  chapter. 

Hupfeld  maintains  that  the  boughs  spoken  of  in 
ver.  40  were  intended  to  be  carried  in  festive  proces- 
sion, and  that  Neh.  8:15  quite  misunderstands  the 
purport  of  the  injunction  when  it  speaks  of  using 
them  to  make  booths  for  the  people  to  lodge  in. 
But  the  directions  to  take  the  branches  and  to  dwell 
in  booths  stand  in  very  obvious  relation  ;  and  it  is 
difficult  to  see  why  the  branches  might  not  be,  as  in 
actual  fact  they  were,  used  for  both  purposes. 

That  Neh.  8:17  does  not  oblige  us  to  suppose  that 
the  feast  of  Tabernacles  had  never  been  observed  be- 
fore the  time  of  Nehemiah  is  plain,  not  only  from 
previous  mention  of  it  at  earlier  periods  of  the  his- 
tory, but  from  Ezra  3  : 4,  where  it  is  expressly  said, 
that  they  kept  the  "  feast  of  Tabernacles  as  it  is 
written  ";  where  this  brief  formula  is  only  an  abridg- 
ment of  that  which  is  used  two  verses  before,  "  as  it 
is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  the  man  of  God." 
Neither  can  the  passage  in  Nehemiah  mean  that 
booths  were  then  for  the  first  time  used  in  the  cele- 
bration of  this  feast ;  for  the  express  reference  to  the 
time  of  Joshua  implies  that  it  had  certainly  been 
kept,  as  the  children  of  Israel  then  kept  it,  in  Joshua's 
days, — not  Joshua  the  high  priest,  the  contemporary 
and  coadjutor  of  Zerubbabel,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis 
strangely  fancied,  but  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun,  the  suc- 
cessor of  Moses. 


v. 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES,  301 

The  primitive  character  of  this  mode  of  celebrating 
has  a  further  voucher  in  the  name  of  the  feast,  Taber- 
nacles (ji"i3t)  booths),  which  here  finds  its  only  expla* 
nation ;  also  in  the  usage  of  the  vintagers  to  lodge  in 
booths  while  gathering  the  fruit  from  which  it  is  de- 
rived;  and  in  Hos.  12:9,  which  makes  special  allu- 
sion both  to  the  manner  of  observing  the  feast  and 
the  historical  association  connected  with  it :  "I  that 
am  the  LORD  thy  God  from  the  land  of  Egypt  will 
yet  make  thee  to  dwell  in  tabernacles  as  in  the  days 
of  the  solemn  feasts." 

The  point  of  this  passage  in  Nehemiah  lies  not  so 
much  in  the  thing  done  as  in  the  manner  of  doing  it. 
It  is  not  that  this  action  had  not  been  performed  be- 
fore since  the  time  of  Joshua,  but  they  had  not  done 
so.  The  universality  with  which  it  was  done,  and  the 
gladness,  as  is  added  immediately  after,  with  which  it 
was  done,  had  no  parallel  since  the  days  of  Joshua, 
when  all  Israel  were  in  tents  and  were  rejoicing  in 
the  manifest  presence  of  Jehovah  among  them  and 
in  their  recently  acquired  possession  of  the  land  flow- 
ing with  milk  and  honey.  So  the  exiles  who  had 
lately  returned  from  captivity  and  were  now  settled 
in  the  land  of  their  fathers,  assured  of  Jehovah's  al- 
mighty protection  and  help,  engaged  with  alacrity  and 
unanimity  in  every  requirement  of  the  law,  now  fresh- 
ly expounded  to  them,  and  felt  as  though  those  early 
days  of  triumph  and  of  joy  had  once  again  returned. 

The  same  allegation  is  also  made  in  regard  to 
Tabernacles  as  the  other  feasts,  and  with  as  little 
reason  that  there  was  a  transition  from  the  voluntary 
private  thank-offerings  customary  in  the  early  periods 


302  THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES, 

to  public  sacrifices  rigidly  prescribed,  and  which  were 
an  affair  of  the  priests  rather  than  of  the  people  ;  that 
the  tithes  and  first-fruits  of  their  oil  and  their  wine 
became  the  legal  due  to  the  priests  instead  of  a  grate- 
ful gift  to  God,  and  hence  no  longer  supplied  material 
for  a  joyous  meal  of  the  offerer  and  his  friends  at  the 
sanctuary.  Thus  religion,  it  is  said,  became  more 
and  more  separated  from  the  affairs  of  daily  life  and 
from  the  occasions  of  pious  gratitude  which  the 
changing  seasons  and  the  bountiful  productions  of 
the  soil  afforded.  It  lost  its  native  warmth,  its  natu- 
ralness and  spontaneous  character,  and  became  formal 
and  cold,  a  mere  matter  of  statute  and  rigid  require- 
ment. It  was  symptomatic  of  the  transition  from 
ancient  Israel  to  modern  Pharisaic  Judaism. 

How  unfounded  all  this  is  we  have  already  seen. 
The  Priest  Code  of  Leviticus  and  Numbers,  which 
ordains  the  sacrifices  to  be  offered  day  by  day 
throughout  each  feast  on  behalf  of  the  people,  makes 
explicit  provision  at  the  same  time  for  all  the  gifts 
and  vows  and  free-will  offerings,  which  the  pious  zeal 
of  the  people  prompted  them  to  present.  Lev.  23  :  38, 
Num.  29  :  39.  And  it  bids  them  rejoice  before  the 
Lord  their  God  throughout  the  feast.  Lev.  23  :  40, 
in  terms  very  similar  to  those  employed  in  Deut.  16. 
And  that  this  combination  of  national  and  individual 
worship,  of  public  sacrifice  and  private  festivity  and 
glad  rejoicing  before  the  Lord  characterized  these 
feasts  down  to  the  time  of  Solomon,  and  so  on  to 
the  close  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  abundantly  ap^ 
parent  from  i  Kin.  8  :  5,  62-64,  Ezra  3  :  4>  5,  Neh, 
3  :  ia-12. 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES.  303 

And  in  fact  the  common  sanctuary  of  Israel,  God's 
dwelling-place  in  Zion  and  the  worship  there  main- 
tained, and  the  confidence  there  reposed,  and  the  help 
thence  experienced,  so  far  from  chilling  the  fervor  of  de- 
votion and  leading  to  a  cheerless  and  spiritless  formal- 
ity, was  the  very  spring  and  fountain  of  warm  religious 
life  and  elevated  aspirations  and  ardent  devotion,  as 
is  apparent  in  the  entire  book  of  Psalms  from  first  to 
last,  which  clusters  about  the  one  earthly  habitation 
of  the  Most  High,  and  places  there  all  hope  and 
draws  thence  every  inspiration  and  stimulus.^  ''  How 
amiable  are  thy  tabernacles,  O  LORD  of  hosts ;  my 
soul  longeth,  yea,  even  fainteth  for  the  courts  of  the 
Lord  ;  my  heart  and  my  flesh  crieth  out  for  the 
living  God."  ''As  the  hart  panteth  after  the  water- 
brooks,  so  panteth  my  soul  after  thee,  O  God.  My 
soul  thirsteth  for  God,  for  the  living  God ;  when  shall 
I  come  and  appear  before  God  ? "  "  Lord,  who 
shall  abide  in  thy  tabernacle  ?  who  shall  dwell  in  thy 
holy  hill  ?  He  that  walketh  uprightly  and  worketh 
righteousness,  and  speaketh  the  truth  in  his  heart." 
"  Who  shall  ascend  into  the  hill  of  the  LORD  ?  and 
who  shall  stand  in  his  holy  place  ?  He  that  hath 
clean  hands  and  a  pure  heart ;  who  hath  not  lifted  up 
his  soul  unto  vanity  nor  sworn  deceitfully.  He  shall 
receive  the  blessing  from  the  Lord  and  righteousness 

from  the   God  of  his  salvation Lift  up  your 

heads,  O  ye  gates ;  even  lift  them  up,  ye  everlasting 
doors ;  and  the  king  of  glory  shall  come  in.     Who  is 

*  See  the  noteworthy  article  by  Smend,  "  Ueber  die  Bedeutung 
des  Jerusalemischen  Tempels  in  der  alttestamentlichen  Religion,'' 
in  the  "Studien  und  Kritiken,"  for  1884,  pp.  718  ff. 


304  I^^E  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 

this  king  of  glory?  the  LORD  of  hosts,  he  is  the  king 
of  glory."  "  I  was  glad  when  they  said  unto  me, 
Let  us  go  into  the  house  of  the  Lord.  Our  feet 
shall  stand  within  thy  gates,  O  Jerusalem,  .... 
whither  the  tribes  go  up,  the  tribes  of  the  LORD 
unto  the  testimony  of  Israel  to  give  thanks  unto  the 
name  of  the  LORD."  *'  O  send  out  thy  light  and 
thy  truth ;  let  them  lead  me ;  let  them  bring  me 
unto  thy  holy  hill  and  to  thy  tabernacles.  Then 
will  I  go  unto  the  altar  of  God,  unto  God  my  exceed, 
ing  joy ;  yea,  upon  the  harp  will  I  praise  thee,  O 
God,  my  God."  '*  I  cried  unto  the  LORD  with  my 
voice  and  he  heard  me  out  of  his  holy  hill." 

We  hear  a  great  deal  from  the  critics  about  the 
centralization  of  worship  proving  the  death-blow  to 
the  old  religion  of  Israel  and  substituting  a  round  of 
external  formalities  in  place  of  true  inward  devotion. 
Let  them  explain  then  the  book  of  Psalms,  and  trace 
the  fervor  of  its  enthusiasm,  its  pure,  rapturous  de- 
votion, its  elevated  and  enlightened  piety,  to  its 
source.  It  was  the  sanctuary  on  Zion 'which  kindled 
it  to  a  glow.  What  was  there  corresponding  to  it, 
that  was  ever  produced  in  those  local  sanctuaries  and 
that  popular  religion,  of  which  we  hear  so  much  ?  I 
do  not  now  call  attention  to  any  argument  derived 
from  the  Davidic  origin  of  any  of  the  Psalms,  and 
the  proof  thus  afforded  of  the  unity  of  the  sanctuar>' 
in  the  age  of  David.  But  dismissing  all  questions  of 
date  and  authorship,  look  at  the  book  as  a  whole,  as 
the  utterance  of  pious  hearts  in  Israel,  as  the  flower 
and  the  crown  of  Old  Testament  devotion.  Accept, 
if  you  please,  the  critical  conclusion,  that  the  Psalms 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES,  305 

are  almost  without  exception  post-exilic,  and  that  all 
that  we  really  know  about  them  is  that  they  formed 
the  hymn-book  of  the  second  temple.  This  book, 
then,  is  not  only  contemporaneous  with  Ezra's  alleged 
issue  of  the  Priest  Code,  which  we  are  told  deadened 
and  formalized  the  piety  of  Israel ;  but  it  derives  all 
its  spring,  gathers  all  its  fervor,  draws  all  its  lofty 
and  pure  devotion  from  that  centralized  sanctuary 
and  that  centralized  worship,  which,  as  they  tell  us, 
this  formal  and  stiffened  code  was  the  means  of  es- 
tablishing. 

Finally,  it  is  claimed  in  regard  to  the  feast  of  Tab- 
ernacles as  to  the  others,  that  its  observance  at  one 
central  place  of  worship  was  unknown  both  to  the 
older  laws  and  to  the  earlier  period  of  the  history; 
that  it  was  at  first  celebrated  in  local  sanctuaries  in 
various  parts  of  the  land,  and  only  in  the  course  of 
time  came  to  be  observed  by  all  the  people  at  one 
common  centre.  We  have  seen  that  this  allegation  is 
quite  unfounded  so  far  as  concerns  the  Passover  and 
the  feast  of  Weeks.  It  is  equally  so  in  the  case  of 
the  feast  now  before  us.  There  is  no  implication  in 
the  law  that  it  was  ever  to  be  observed  in  a  variety 
of  places ;  there  is  no  statement  in  the  history  that  it 
ever  was  observed  anywhere  but  at  the  common  sanc- 
tuary ;  and  there  is  no  recorded  fact  from  which  a 
different  practice  can  with  any  reason  be  inferred. 
The  injunction  in  Ex.  23  and  34  is  the  same  in  regard 
to  all  three  of  the  annual  feasts.  Three  times  in  the 
year  all  thy  males  shall  appear  before  the  LORD  God  ; 
and  this  not  in  various  sanctuaries,  in  different  houses  of 
God,  but  in  "  the  house  of  the  LORD  thy  God."  This 
20 


3o6  THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 

house  of  God  must  have  been  where  his  altar  was; 
and  his  altar  was  to  be  where  God  would  record  his 
name,  Ex.  20  :  24.  So  that  this  is  coincident  with  the 
requirement  in  Deut.  16:  16:  ''Three  times  in  the 
year  shall  all  thy  males  appear  before  the  Lord  thy 
God  in  the  place  which  he  shall  choose."  There  is  en- 
tire unanimity  in  all  the  laws  upon  this  point.  It  is 
at  the  one  house  of  God  that  all  Israelites  are  annu- 
ally to  appear  and  keep  these  sacred  feasts.  Or  if  a 
distinction  is  to  be  found  in  these  commands,  and  the 
critical  principle  is  to  be  pressed  that  each  law  is  to  be 
interpreted  absolutely  by  itself  and  out  of  relation  to 
every  other  law,  the  conclusion  which  would  follow 
would  be  precisely  the  reverse  of  that  which  Well- 
hausen  actually  draws.  In  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
and  in  Deuteronomy  pilgrimages  to  the  sanctuary  are 
required  at  each  of  the  annual  feasts.  In  the  Priest 
Code,  in  Leviticus  and  Numbers  this  requirement 
is  not  repeated  ;  it  is  simply  taken  for  granted  as  al- 
ready known.  But  if  no  law  is  to  be  allowed  to  sup- 
plement another,  the  inevitable  conclusion  will  be 
upon  Wellhausen's  own  principles  that  originally  the 
people  kept  the  feasts  at  one  common  sanctuary,  but 
after  the  exile  this  ceased  to  be  the  case. 

Wellhauscn'  undertakes  to  expound  to  us  the 
course  of  things  with  regard  to  the  autumnal  feast  of 
ingathering.  The  earliest  notice  of  such  a  festival 
he  finds  in  Judg.  9  :  27,  where  the  idolatrous  inhabit- 
ants of  Shechem  celebrate  the  completed  vintage  in 
the  house  of  their  god   Baal-berith,  and  it   is   further 

*  "  Geschichte  Israels,"  pp.  96  ff.  Prolegomena  (Eng.  Tj.),  p. 
94  ff. 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


307 


alluded  to  in  Jotham's  parable,  vs.  9,  13,  which  speaks 
of  the  fatness  of  the  olive,  "  wherewith  they  honor 
God  and  man,"  and  the  'Svine  which  cheereth  God 
and  man."  Then  in  Judg.  21  :  19  ff.,  mention  is  made 
of  a  like  annual  festival  in  the  vineyards  of  Shiloh, 
which  though  occurring  in  a  narrative,  that  he  thinks 
to  be  in  the  highest  degree  incredible,  is  nevertheless 
confirmed,  i  Sam.  i  :  3,  by  the  yearly  visit  of  Samuel's 
father  to  Shiloh.  This  occurred  ''  at  the  return  of 
days,"  ver.  20,  an  expression  almost  identical  with  that 
which  is  rendered  "at  the  year's  end,"  Ex.  34:22, 
the  time  of  the  autumnal  festival.  His  inference  is 
that  instead  of  continuing  to  observe  the  feast  in 
every  different  locality  throughout  the  land,  particu- 
lar centres  began  to  form  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
period  of  the  Judges,  like  Shechem  and  Shiloh,  whose 
sanctuaries  were  rising  into  prominence,  and  drew 
pilgrims  from  the  surrounding  district.  When  She- 
chem became  an  Israelitish  city,  its  new  occupants 
neither  abolished  the  sanctuary  nor  the  Hillulim 
or  vintage  feast,  which  was  habitually  celebrated 
there.  The  great  royal  temples  of  a  later  time  were 
still  more  widely  influential.  So  that  from  the  reign 
of  Solomon  this  feast  was  held  at  Jerusalem  in  the 
seventh  nionth,  and  at  Bethel  since  Jeroboam  proba- 
bly somewhat  later  in  the  season,  This  was  then  the 
only  Panegyris  or  assembly  of  the  whole  people.  The 
harvest  feast  may  have  been  observed  already,  but 
only  in  small  local  circles.  This  distinction  is  reflected 
in  Deuteronomy,  according  to  which  Tabernacles, 
although  it  theoretically  had  no  precedence,  was  the 
only    feast  which   was   observed    for   the  full   week 


308  THE  FEAST  OE  TABERNACLES. 

Pilgrims  had  to  remain  but  one  day  at  the  sanctuary 
at  Passover,  and  even  this  brief  demand  is  more  em- 
phatically inculcated  than  the  other,  showing  that  it 
was  an  innovation. 

But  the  idolatrous  worship  of  Baal-berith  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  feasts  of  Jehovah.  There  is  noth- 
ing in  the  passage  cited,  nor  in  any  other,  to  suggest 
that  these  latter  were  ever  celebrated  at  Shechem. 
On  the  contrary  express  mention  is  made  of  the  feast 
of  the  Lord  in  Shiloh.  And  although  this  is  found 
in  the  last  chapter  of  Judges,  the  fact  there  recorded 
belongs  early  in  the  history  of  this  book,  for  Phinehas 
the  grandson  of  Aaron  was  priest  at  the  time,  20 :  28. 
Shiloh  was  the  place  where  Joshua  had  set  up  the 
Mosaic  tabernacle.  Josh.  18:  i,  and  where  the  house 
of  God  continued  through  the  period  of  the  Judges, 
Judg.  18:31,  19:18,  down  to  the  time  of  Samuel, 
when  it  still  bore  the  name  "  tabernacle  of  the  con- 
gregation," I  Sam.  2  :  22,  a  term  never  applied  to  any 
building  but  the  sacred  tent  of  Moses.  To  this  wor- 
shippers  gathered  not  from  the  surrounding  region 
of  Ephraim  merely,  but  from  all  Israel,  i  Sam.  2  :  14; 
and  it  was  God's  habitation,  the  one  divinely  com- 
manded place  of  sacrifice  for  the  entire  people,  where 
the  one  priesthood  ministered  that  was  chosen  of  God 
out  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  to  this  service,  vs.  27-29. 
The  critics  tell  us  that  the  passage  last  cited  is  an  in 
sertion  by  the  Deuteronomic  reviser,  the  only  proof 
of  which  is  that  it  flatly  contradicts  their  whole  hy- 
pothesis. We  can  not  accommodate  them  in  their 
very  natural  wish  to  rid  themselves  of  its  unwelcome 
testimony.  They  have  appealed  to  the  history,  and 
by  th'e  facts  of  the  history  they  must  abide. 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES.  309 

The  mention  of  'the  daughters  of  Shiloh'  in  par- 
ticular, Judg.  21  :2i,  as  dancing  at  the  time  of  the 
festival,  does  not  prove  that  it  was  only  locally  ob- 
served ;  for  apart  from  the  fact  that  the  represent- 
atives of  the  people  there  encamped  would  naturally 
plan  to  absolve  their  own  daughters,  which  they  had 
pledged  themselves  not  to  give  in  marriage  to  Ben- 
jamin, women  were  not  required  by  law  to  come  to 
the  feasts,  and  they  would  be  less  likely  to  do  so  vol- 
untarily at  this  time  of  war  than  in  ordinary  years. 
It  is  observable,  however,  that  the  entire  camp  of 
Israel  left  the  seat  of  war,  came  to  Shiloh,  21  :  12,  and 
remained  there  until  after  the  feast,  ver.  24. 

The  next  allusion  to  one  of  the  religious  feasts  is  at 
the  dedication  of  Solomon's  temple,  which,  in  order 
that  it  might  be  a  truly  national  celebration,  was  ap- 
pointed at  the  time  of  the  feast  of  Tabernacles  in  the 
seventh  month.  The  vastness  of  the  assemblage  on  that 
occasion  appears  from  the  provision  made  for  them 
by  Solomon's  sacrifice  of  two  and  twenty  thousand 
oxen  and  an  hundred  and  twenrty  thousand  sheep, 
I  Kin.  8  :  63,  comp.  ver.  5.  The  ark  of  the  LORD  and 
the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  and  all  the  holy 
vessels  that  were  in  the  tabernacle  were  deposited  in 
the  temple,  which  thus  became  heir  of  the  exclusive 
sanctity  that  before  had  been  vested  in  them.  The 
'  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,'  or  more  exactly  ren- 
dered, 'tent  of  meeting,'  is  of  course  not  the  tent 
which  David  had  pitched  on  Mount  Zion  for  the  tem- 
porary reception  of  the  ark,  which  never  bears  this 
name,  but  the  old  Mosaic  tabernacle  of  which  this 
was  a  standing  designation,  and  which,  since  the  loss 


310  THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES, 

of  its  divine  significance  by  the  capture  of  the  ark, 
had  remained  an  empty  shell  at  Nob  and  at  Gibeon 
until  now. 

All  the  meaning  and  impressiveness  of  the  dedica- 
tion centred  in  the  removal  of  the  ark.  "  The  elders 
of  Israel,  and  all  the  heads  of  the  tribes,  the  chief  of 
the  fathers  of  the  children  of  Israel,  assembled  unto 
king  Solomon  in  Jerusalem,"  not  to  gaze  upon  and 
admire  or  even  worship  in  the  superb  structure  that 
he  had  reared,  but  "  that  they  might  bring  up  the  ark 
of  the  covenant  of  the  LORD  out  of  the  (:\\.y  of  David, 
which  is  Zion,"  i  Kin.  8:  i.  Before  this  ark  on  its 
sacred  passage  to  its  new  abode  "  King  Solomon  and 
all  the  congregation  of  Israel  that  were  assembled 
unto  him  were  sacrificing  sheep  and  oxen  that  could 
not  be  told  nor  numbered  for  multitude,"  ver.  5. 
This  ark,  the  symbol  and  pledge  of  the  divine  pres- 
ence, contained  "the  two  tables  of  stone,  which  Moses 
put  there  at  Horeb,  when  the  LORD  made  a  covenant 
with  the  children  of  Israel,  when  they  came  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt,"  ver.  9.  And  when  this  ark  had 
been  set  in  its  proper  place,  *'  the  cloud  filled  the 
house  of  the  Lord,  so  that  the  priests  could  not  stand 
to  minister  because  of  the  cloud ;  for  the  glory  of  the 
Lord  had  filled  the  house  of  the  LORD,"  vs.  10,  11, 
as  it  had  previously  filled  the  tabernacle  of  Moses  on 
its  erection.  Then  spake  Solomon,  The  LORD  said 
that  he  would  dwell  in  the  thick  darkness.  I  have 
surely  built  thee  an  house  to  dwell  in,  a  settled  place 
for  thee  to  abide  in  forever,  vs.  12,  13.  Since  the 
day  that  God  brought  forth  his  people  Israel  out  of 
E&ypt>  he  chose  no  city  out  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES.  311 

to  build  an  house  that  his  name  might  be  theiein, 
ver.  16.  And  God  had  not  dwelt  in  any  house  since 
the  time  that  he  brought  up  the  children  of  Israel 
out  of  Egypt,  but  had  walked  in  a  tent  and  a  taber- 
nacle, 2  Sam.  7 : 6.  But  now  that  he  had  given  rest 
to  his  people  on  every  side,  i  Kin.  5  : 3-5,  Solomon 
had,  in  accordance  with  the  promise  divinely  made 
to  his  father  David,  been  permitted  to  build  the  house 
to  the  name  of  the  LORD  God  of  Israel,  and  he  had 
set  there  a  place  for  the  ark.  He  expresses  his  amaze- 
ment that  the  God,  whom  the  heaven  and  heaven 
of  heavens  could  not  contain,  should  condescend  to 
dwell  in  this  house  which  he  had  builded.  And  yet 
he  prays,  Let  thine  eyes  "  be  open  toward  this  house 
night  and  day,  even  toward  the  place  of  which  thou 
hast  said,  My  name  shall  be  there,  ....  and  hearken 
thou  unto  the  supplication  of  thy  servant  and  of  thy 
people  Israel,  when  they  shall  pray  toward  this  place; 
and  hear  thou  in  heaven  thy  dwelling-place,"  I  Kin. 
8 :  20  ff. 

Nothing  can  be  plainer  from  the  record  than  that 
this  was  to  Solomon  and  to  all  Israel  not  one  sanctu- 
ary among  many,  but  the  one  sole  sanctuary  of  the 
Most  High ;  and  that  its  superior  sacredness  was  not 
due  to  the  greater  magnificence  of  the  structure,  or 
its  being  at  the  royal  residence,  but  to  the  presence 
of  the  ark  and  the  consequent  indwelling  of  the  LORD 
of  hosts.  Of  course  the  critics  make  free  use  of  their 
knife  upon  this  most  damaging  recital.  The  post- 
exilic  writer  of  the  book,  they  tell  us,  has  transferred 
the  superstitious  reverence  with  which  the  temple 
came  to  be  regarded  in  later  days  to  the  time  of  Sol- 


312 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 


omon,  when  no  such  view  was  entertained.  We  chal. 
lenge  them  for  their  proof.  There  is  absokitely  none 
forthcoming,  but  that  the  plain  letter  of  the  history 
is  at  utter  variance  with  their  hypothesis.  All  the 
testimony  that  can  be  gathered  from  every  source 
within  reach  tends  one  way  and  to  one  result,  viz., 
that  the  temple  was  the  one  only  legitimate  sanctuary 
in  Israel  after  Shiloh.  There  is  not  a  syllable  of  con- 
tradiction or  rebutting  evidence  from  any  quarter. 
But  all  must  be  discredited  and  set  at  nought  be- 
cause, forsooth,  it  does  not  please  the  critics. 

Ah !  they  say,  but  the  high  places  were  not  done 
away  even  after  the  temple  was  built.  Solomon's 
heart  was  in  his  old  age  turned  away  after  other  gods, 
I  Kin.  11:4,  7,  and  he  built  an  high  place  for  Che- 
mosh  the  abomination  of  Moab,  and  for  Molech  the 
abomination  of  the  children  of  Ammon.  And  in  the 
reign  of  Rehoboam,  14:23,  Judah  built  high  places 
and  stocked  them  with  the  various  emblems  of  idol- 
atry on  every  high  hill  and  under  every  green  tree. 
And  so  Aaron  and  Israel  made  a  golden  calf  at  the 
foot  of  Sinai.  And  so  Judas  betrayed  his  Lord. 
There  have  been  shameful  apostasies  and  departures 
from  truth  and  duty  in  every  age.  What  does  this 
prove  except  the  corruption  of  human  nature  and 
the  innate  tendency  of  man  to  turn  away  from  the 
holy  God  and  the  purity  of  his  worship  and  service, 
which  breaks  out  in  the  most  unexpected  quarters 
and  the  most  humiliating  manner?  Or  will  it  be 
claimed  that  Solomon  did  not  know  but  that  Che- 
mosh  and  Molech  were  as  much  entitled  to  his  service 
as  Jehovah?     If  his  transgression  is  to  disprove  the 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES.  313 

existence  of  the  law  which  he  so  grossly  violated,  it 
is  not  the  unity  of  Jehovah's  -sanctuary,  but  whether 
Jehovah  was  the  God  of  Israel  that  is  thus  brought 
into  question. 

Again  we  are  reminded  that  the  ten  tribes  kept 
their  autumnal  feast  at  Bethel.  But  this  does  not 
prove  that  Bethel  was  an  equally  legitimate  sanctu- 
ary. We  have  a  historical  account  of  the  establish- 
ment of  this  ^hismalical  and^^  by 
Jeroboam,,  whose  aim  was  to  terminate  the  worship 
at  a  common  sanctuary  which  had  previously  pre- 
vailed, lest  a  continuance  of  religious  unity  should 
cement  again  the  lately  ruptured  political  unity. 
With  this  view  he  set  up  the  golden  calves  at  Bethel 
and  at  Dan,  and  ordained  a  feast  in  the  eighth  month 
at  Bethel,  i  Kin.  12  :  26  ff.  This  account  Wellhausen 
considers  unreliable.  Very  naturally ;  he  is  in  the 
habit  of  bowing  every  witness  out  of  court  whose  testi- 
mony is  not  to  his  mind.  The  critics  tell  us  this  was 
an  ancestral  sanctuary,  where  it  had  been  the  custom 
to  worship  Jehovah  under  the  image  of  a  young  bull. 
We  have  the  express  statement  of  the  historian  on 
the  one  side,  and  the  unsupported  word  of  the  critics 
on  the  other ;  which  is  to  be  believed  ?  There  Is  not 
a  t£ace_of  this  calf-worship  in  Israel  from  Aaron  to 
Jeroboam  ;  not  only  no  proof  that  such  worship  was 
considered  lawful,  but  even  their  apostasies  from  God 
never  took  that  form.  It  came  from  Egypt  and  was 
one  of  the  fruits  of  Jeroboam's  long  sojourn  in  that 
country. 

If  Bethel  was  a  true  sanctuary  and  the  worship 
there  lawful,  why  did  Elijah  offer  his  sacrifice  designed 


314  THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 

to  reclaim  the  people  from  the  worship  of  Baal  not 
at  Bethel,  but  at  Carmel,  which  had  no  sacred  associ- 
ation ?  and  upon  an  altar  whose  twelve  stones  were  a 
protest  against  the  schism  and  at  an  hour  which  cor- 
responded with  the  worship  in  the  temple?  And 
why,  when  his  life  was  in  peril  from  the  rage  of  Jez- 
ebel, did  he  seek  the  LORD  at  Horeb,  from  whose 
summit  the  law  had  been  proclaimed,  not  only,  Thou 
shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me,  but.  Thou  shalt 
not  make  unto  thee  any  graven  image  ?  Why  did 
not  only  Elijah  denounce  Ahab,  who  introduced  the 
worship  of  Baal,  but  Elisha  likewise  repel  Jehoram, 
who  had  abandoned  Baal  and  clave  to  the  golden 
calves,  2  Kin.  3 : 2  f.,  13?  and  proceed  to  anoint  Ha- 
zael  to  be  a  scourge  to  Israel,  i  Kin.  19:  15,  2  Kin. 
8:13?  And  why  did  Hosea  speak  with  such  con- 
tempt and  abhorrence  of  the  worship  of  the  calves, 
8 :  5  f.,  io:5f.,  13:2,  denounce  their  feasts  as  feasts 
of  Baal,  2:13,  point  to  Bethel  as  the  very  fountain- 
head  of  corruption  and  ruin,  10:8,  15,  declare  their 
kings  to  be  self-appointed  and  void  of  divine  sanc- 
tion, 8:4,  and  link  all  the  hope  of  Israel's  future  to 
their  return  from  both  their  false  government  and 
their  false  worship  to  seek  the  LORD  their  God  and 
David  their  king,  3:5?  Neither  Bethel  nor  the  calves 
find  sanction  anywhere. 

But  it  is  claimed  that  while  Tabernacles  was  ob- 
served at  one  common  sanctuary  at  an  early  period, 
there  is  no  evidence  that  this  was  the  case  with  the 
other  feasts  likewise.  Only  one  feast  is  spoken  of  at 
Shiloh,  Judg.  21  :  19.  Elkanah  went  up  but  once  in 
the  year,   i   Sam.  i  :  3  ff.,  and  the  same  feast  is  men- 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES.  315 

tioned  at  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  temple,  i  Kin. 
8:2,  and  contrasted  with  the  feast  of  Jeroboam,  12: 
32  ff.  There  could  have  been,  it  is  argued,  but  one 
pilgrimage  feast  throughout  this  period ;  the  others 
must  have  been  observed  as  yet  at  local  sanctuaries 
throughout  the  land.  But  with  the  exception  of 
Joshua's  Passover  the  silence  respecting  it  and  the 
feast  of  Weeks  in  all  this  period  is  total.  There  is 
no  record  of  their  local  observance,  and  no  intimation 
of  any  such  thing.  Yet  the  most  ancient  laws,  as  the 
critics  regard  them,  those  which,  we  are  told,  govern 
the  practice  of  this  period,  ordain  three  feasts  and 
enjoin  pilgrimages  alike  to  each.  Clearly,  then,  ejthef 
the  law  existed  without  being  observed,  or  the  silence 
of  the  history  docs  not  disprove  their  observance. 
Either  admission  deprives  the  hypothesis  of  one  of 
its  main  props. 

The  Psalms  of  David  recognize  throughout  but  one 
sanctuary,  that  in  Zion.  Of  their  genuineness  we 
have  the  proof  drawn  from  their  titles,  corroborated 
in  certain  cases  at  least  by  strong  internal  evidence, 
as  well  as  by  general  references  to  him  as  the  "  sweet 
Psalmist  of  Israel,"  2  Sam.  23  :  i,  and  to  his  musical 
skill,  I  Sam.  16  :  16  ff.  Amos  6  :  5,  by  the  repetition  of 
Ps.  18,  in  2  Sam.  22,  by  his  other  poetic  compositions, 
2  Sam.  I  :  17,  ch.  23,  and  the  association  of  music 
with  public  worship.  Am.  5  :  23,  Isa.  30 :  29,  Jer.  33  : 
II,  not  to  speak  of  the  explicit  testimony  of  the 
books  of  Chronicles.  But  it  does  not  agree  with  the 
hypothesis  to  admit  that  any  extant  psalm  can  be 
referred  to  David.  All  are  consigned  to  the  period 
after  the  exile. 


3i6  THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 

What  then  do  the  prophets  say?  Hosea  and  Amos 
denounce  the  sanctuaries  of  Israel  in  unmeasured 
terms,  Hos.  4:13,  15,  10  :  8,  15,  Am.  3  :  14,  4 :  4, 
5  : 4,  5,  8  :  14.  The  former  calls  the  feasts  celebrated 
there  feasts  of  Baal,  Hos.  2:11,  13,  and  connects 
their  true  seeking  of  the  LORD  with  a  return  to  David 
their  king,  3  :  5.  Amos,  i  :  2,  appeals  to  God's  loud 
voice  of  judgment  which  was  resounding  from  Zion 
and  Jerusalem.  Isaiah  29  :  i  (Heb.)  speaks  of  the 
feasts  as  running  their  annual  round  in  the  city  where 
David  dwelt ;  of  glad  processions  to  celebrate  the 
Passover  in  the  mountain  of  the  Lord,  30  :  29 ;  of 
the  Lord  as  coming  down  to  fight  for  Mount  Zion 
and  defending  Jerusalem,  where  are  his  altar  fires, 
31  :  4,  5,  9  ;  of  Zion  the  city  of  our  solemnities,  which 
no  foe  can  successfully  assail,  33  :  20,  26  :  i,  10  :  32, 
where  Jehovah  dwells,  8:18,  and  reigns,  24  :  23,  and 
is  worshipped,  27  :  13,  and  presents  brought  from 
foreign  lands  to  the  place  of  the  name  of  the  Lord 
of  hosts,  the  Mount  Zion,  18:7,  to  which  all  nations 
shall  one  day  flock  in  eager  submission,  2  :  3,  where 
he  shall  make  to  all  people  a  feast  of  fat  things,  25:6, 
and  shall  renew  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  smoke  as  the 
symbol  of  his  presence  and  protection,  4  :  5,  and 
whose  courts  he  claims  as  his  own  though  trampled 
and  profaned  by  unworthy  worshippers,  i  :  12. 

The  fact  that  Jerusalem,  and  not  the  high  places 
of  Israel,  was  to  the  very  earliest  prophets  the  true 
sanctuary  of  Jehovah,  is  undeniable  ;  and  the  critics 
have  recourse  to  every  evasion  to  break  its  force. 
They  say  it  was  not  a  preference  of  one  sanctuary 
over  others  as  such,  but  because  of  the  corruptions 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES.  317 

that  had  gained  a  foothold  in  the  latter.  Dr.  Robert- 
son  Smith  says  it  was  not  because  the  temple  was  in 
Jerusalem,  but  this  was  the  capital  of  the  kingdom, 
the  seat  of  Jehovah's  empire.  But  how  entirely  the 
ideas  of  a  sanctuary  and  a  royal  residence  were  dis- 
sociated, appears  from  the  fact  that  in  the  ten  tribes 
these  were  never  combined  in  the  same  locality. 
Smepd  '  confesses  that  it  is  the  sanctuary  in  Jeru- 
salem  which  the  prophets  exalt,  but  it  is  because 
they  anticipate  the  overthrow  of  the  ten  tribes  and 
the  preservation  of  Judah.  They  stand  or  fall  with 
their  temples.  And  then  the  actual  overthrow  and 
desolation  of  the  northern  kingdom  freed  Jerusalem 
from  its  rivals;  while  the  disastrous  defeat  of  Sen- 
nacherib heightened  the  prestige  of  Jerusalem.  But 
Smend  precisely  inverts  the  order  of  cause  and  effect. 
It  was  not  the  protection  accorded  to  Jerusalem 
which  made  it  Jehovah's  dwelling;  but  because  it 
was  his  chosen  seat,  his  holy  arm  was  made  bare  for 
its  defence.  Isaiah  and  Micah  and  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel  foretell  the  desolation  of  Jerusalem  and  its 
temple ;  this  does  not  in  their  eyes  obscure  the  fact 
that  it  was  the  divine  abode.  Jehovah  forsook  Israel 
and  he  forsook  Zion  because  of  the  iniquities  prac- 
ticed there,  but  this  did  not  annul  the  divine  choice 
in  the  one  case  nor  in  the  other. 

But  Smend  maintains  that  we  can  not  infer  from 
the  predominance  of  the  temple  in  the  time  of 
Isaiah  and  Amos  that  it  possessed  the  same  predomi- 
nance in  the  period  preceding,  because  the  Jehovistic 

'  "Studien  und  Kritiken,"  for  1884,  "  Ueber  die  Bedeutung  des 
Jerusalemischen  Tempels,"  p.  703. 


3i8  THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 

narratives  of  Genesis  which  belong  to  that  time,  are 
framed  with  the  view  of  exalting  the  sanctuaries  at 
Ikthel,  Beersheba  and  elsewhere  by  mythical  ac- 
counts of  these  spots  being  hallowed  by  divine  mani- 
festations to  the  patriarchs  or  their  offering  worship 
there.  They  presuppose  a  period,  therefore,  in  which 
these  sanctuaries  were  held  in  honor  and  were  re- 
sorted to  and  venerated  by  the  pious.  But  how  does 
it  appear  that  these  narratives  belong  to  that  period  ? 
Because  these  sanctuaries  were  venerated  then,  and 
this  would  give  rise  to  the  stories.  How  does  it 
appear  that  the  sanctuaries  were  venerated  at  that 
time?  l^ecause  that  is  when  these  stories  originated. 
And  thus  they  prove  the  stories  by  the  sanctuaries 
and  the  sanctuaries  by  the  stories  in  a  perpetual 
circle.  Why,  then,  does  Hosea,  who  denounces  the 
sanctuaries,  admit  the  truth  of  these  patriarchal  nar- 
ratives, and  even  point  his  condemnation  by  it, 
12:4?  The  Bethel  of  Jacob  has  become  a  Bethaven, 
10  :  5,  8 ;  the  house  of  God  is  converted  into  a  house 
of  iniquity. 

The  allegation  that  the  patriarchal  histories  are 
sheer  inventions  is  gratuitous  and  without  the  sem- 
blance of  a  foundation.  It  was  the  sanctity  given  to 
these  places  by  patriarchal  reminiscences,  which  led 
to  their  selection  by  idolaters  for  their  unauthorized 
worship.  The  history  determined  their  choice  of 
sanctuaries  ;  the  sanctuaries  did  not  produce  the  his- 
tories any  more  than  Bunker  Hill  monument  origi- 
nated the  story  of  the  battle  which  opened  the  Amer- 
ican Revolution. 

The  ark,  Smend  tells  us,  lost  its  prestige  after  its 


THE  LEAST  OF  TABERNACLES.  319 

capture  by  the  Philistines;  and  hence  its  long  seclu- 
sion until  the  victories  of  David  brought  it  once  more 
into  notice  and  restored  it  to  popular  favor.  The 
ease  with  which  the  critics  create  their  facts  is  amaz- 
ing. The  history  knows  of  no  such  loss  of  prestige. 
It  was  not  that  the  ark  had  ceased  to  be  regarded  as 
a  power,  that  it  suffered  this  long  neglect ;  but  be- 
cause its  power  spread  only  consternation  and  dis- 
may. The  inflictions  upon  the  Philistines  compelled 
its  return  to  Bethshemesh.  The  infliction  upon  the 
men  of  Bethshemesh  compelled  them  to  send  it  away. 
It  was  armed  with  terror  and  destruction,  and  their 
despairing  cry  was,  Who  is  able  to  stand  before  this 
holy  Lord  God  ?  and  to  whom  shall  he  go  up  from 
us?  I  Sam.  6  :  20.  It  may  be  said  that  this  is  all 
legend  and  superstition.  Nevertheless  it  shows  in 
what  esteem  the  ark  was  held  in  Israel ;  and  that  the 
reason  of  its  long  seclusion  was  not  contempt,  but 
apprehension. 

The  withdrawal  of  the  ark  from  the  tabernacle  de- 
prived Israel  for  a  season  of  the  manifested  presence 
of  Jehovah.  It  was  a  time  of  the  affliction  of  God's 
habitation  and  the  curtailing  of  the  blessings  which 
it  brought  to  Israel,  i  Sam.  2  :  32  marg.  The  law  of 
the  unity  of  the  sanctuary  necessarily  lapsed  with  the 
cessation  of  the  sanctuary  itself.  Samuel  as  God's 
accredited  messenger  assumed  the  functions  of  the 
degenerate  priesthood,  built  an  altar  at  his  own  house 
in  Ramah,  6:17,  and  offered  sacrifices  at  Mizpeh, 
7  :  9,  Gilgal,  10:8,  11  :  15,  and  Bethlehem,  16  :  2.  The 
people  went  up  to  God  at  Bethel,  10  :  3,  where  he 
had  met  with  Jacob,  and   sought  hii-nL_xlse:»dl£reas 


3 JO  THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES. 

they  were  able,  just  as  the  pious  in  the  ten  tribes 
did  at  a  later  period  under  a  like  necessity  when  de- 
barred from  attendance  at  the  legitimate  sanctuary, 
I  Kin.  18:30,  19:14.  The  persuasion  that  the 
breach  between  Jehovah  and  his  people  was  at 
length  at  an  end  and  that  Jehovah's  dwelling  was 
once  again  to  be  established  in  the  midst  of  his 
people,  was  the  secret  of  that  enthusiastic  joy  with 
which  the  entire  nation  hailed  the  advent  of  the  ark 
to  Zion,  2  Sam.  6:15. 

And  here  it  may  be  remarked,  by  the  way,  that  the 
ark  affords  a  fresh  indication  of  the  weakness  of  the 
argument  from  silence,  which  figures  so  largely  in 
critical  reasoning.  The  ark  is  not  once  mentioned 
or  referred  to  by  any  of  the  prophets  with  the  excep- 
tion of  a  single  passage  in  Jeremiah,  3:16.  Hosea 
nowhere  alludes  to  it,  nor  Amos,  nor  Isaiah,  nor  any 
of  their  contemporaries.  It  is  not  spoken  of  by 
Ezekiel  nor  by  any  of  the  prophets  after  the  exile. 
It  is  nowhere  spoken  of  in  the  Psalms  with  the 
single  exception  of  Ps.  132  :  8  ;  comp.  2  Chron.  6  :  41  ff. 
IIow  natural  the  inference  on  critical  principles  that 
the  ark  was  first  made  in  Jeremiah's  days  or  that  it 
was  never  made  at  all.  And  yet,  even  though  the 
statements  of  the  books  of  Joshua  and  Chronicles 
respecting  it  were  discredited,  its  existence,  its 
supreme  and  awful  sanctity  and  its  Mosaic  origin  are 
attested  by  Judges,  Samuel  and  Kings.  And  as 
there  never  was  more  than  one  ark,  this  is  of  itself  a 
demonstration  that  there  was  but  one  legitimate 
sanctuary  from  the  days  of  Moses.  And  how  can 
tile  Priest  Cotle,  which  so  exalts  the  ark  and  makes  it 


THE  FEAST  OF  TABERNACLES.  321 

the  central  and  most  venerated  object  in  the  sanc- 
tuary, that  in  fact  which  constitutes  it  the  dwelling- 
place  of  Jehovah,  be  attributed  to  the  period  after 
the  exile  when  the  ark  was  no  longer  in  existence 
and  the  sanctuary  of  Israel  was  destitute  of  any  such 
symbol  of  the  divine  presence?  If  this  was  the  in- 
vention of  Ezra,  what  design  can  he  have  had  in  it 
but  that  of  bringing  the  second  temple  into  disrepute 
from  its  lack  of  that  which  constituted  the  glory  of 
the  Mosaic  sanctuary,  and  thus  degrading  the  ritual 
which  he  was  so  bent  upon  exalting  ? 

But  even  after  the  ark  was  restored  and  the  temple 
was  built,  the  critics  tell  us  that  there  is  no  trace  of 
its  exclusive  sanctity  in  the  Books  of  Kings,  except 
in  the  passages  which  simply  reflect  the  opinions  of 
the  post-exilic  writer.  And  how  are  we  to  distinguish 
these  passages  ?  They  are  those  which  declare  the 
temple's  exclusive  sanctity ;  so  that  here  we  have  the 
same  vicious  circle  infecting  the  reasoning  again. 
And  so  it  is  constantly.  The  hypothesis  is  always 
and  evermore  proved  by  the  hypothesis  ;  and  it  has 
no  other  basis. 

Gentlemen  of  Newton  Theological  Insti- 
tution :  The  task  which  you  assigned  to  me  is  ac- 
complished. The  long  and  weary  road  over  which 
we  have  been  travelling  together  is  now  ended.  I 
thank  you  for  the  patience  with  which  you  have 
listened  to  this  often  tedious  discussion.  We  have 
not  knowingly  shunned  any  point  that  our  antago- 
nists have  raised.  I  think  that  we  may  say  after  a 
fair  examination  that  the  hypothesis  of  Wellhausen 
21 


32: 


THE  FEAST  UT   lABERXACLES. 


finds  no  support  in  the  sacred  feasts.  It  is  one  of  its 
main  defences  ;  but  it  is  worth  nothing.  No  gradual 
growth  of  these  institutions  is  attested  by  the  lav/s. 
The  alleged  corroboration  from  the  history  is  alto- 
gether illusive.  The  entire  ritual  legislation  bristles 
with  points  which  have  been  in  like  manner  perverted 
to  the  defence  of  this  hypothesis  and  with  just  as 
little  reason.  Critical  studies  should  not  be  shunned 
nor  despised  because  of  this  perversion.  The  serpent 
before  which  Moses  fled  in  alarm,  became  a  rod  of 
power  in  his  hand,  when  he  boldly  seized  it  by  the 
tail.  The  cloud  may  be  black  with  tempest,  and 
vivid  flashes  leaping  from  its  bosom  awaken  conster- 
nation in  the  timid  ;  but  the  electrical  discharges  will 
prove  harmless  if  the  cloud  be  pierced  by  a  suitable 
conductor,  and  that  which  seemed  so  threatening  will 
but  yield  a  copious  and  refreshing  shower. 


INDEX. 


PASSAGES    OF    SCRIPTURE    QUOTED    OR    REFERRED    TO. 


GENESIS.  PAGE 

1:14 172 

2:4 151 

2:7 r • 134 

6:22 \yi  yiote 

7:5 137  note,  138 

7:9 137  iiote^  138 

7  :  13 135  «^^^,  136 

7  :  16 137  ^zf/^ 

14  :  19,  20 J  70 

14:21 134 

15:18 109 

ch.  17 293 

17:7 131 

17  :  12 213 

17  :  12,  13,  23,  27 132 

17:12,  27 132 

17:14 131 

17  :  23,  26 135  note,  136 

18:6 199 

18  :  19 161 

19:3 199 

21  : 4 137  note 

21 :  22,  32 135 

23:17 146 

24:32 170 

26  :  26 135 

30:33 145 

43  :28 146 

45  :  18 183  note 

47  :i2 133,  134 

EXODUS. 

3:21,  22 119 

4:23 112 

4  :  29-3X 97  n?te 

6:1 147 

0:0 134  note 

6  :  10-12 119 

6:26 13s 

6  :  28-30 119 

7:2 xxT^bis 

7:4 113,  134  note,  135 


PAGE 

7:4,  5 113 

7:6 137  note,  138 

ID,  20 137  note 


35- 
2. . 

23. 


113 

"3 
113 
113 
113 
113 
135 
140 
161 
140 


7 

7 

7 

8 

8 

9 

9: 

9 

9 
10 
10  : 

10  :  28,  29 112 

ch.  II 112 

11  :  2,  3 119 

II  :  4 "2,  113 

II :  4  ff 107,  no 

11:4,  5 no 

II  :4-8 96 

II  :  5 i47  5/.y 

II  :  9,  10 116 

11  :  10 113 

ch.  12. . .  90,  92,  94,  103  bis,  116, 

181,  185,  228,  236,  293 
ch.  12,  13..  86,  89,  158,  159,  165, 

183,  195,  207,  238,  262 
12:1 95,  i44f  156 

12  : 1-13 88,  90  note 

12  : 1-28 45,  117 

12:2 117,  142,  159 

12  : 3 no 

12  : 4 95,  133  bis-,  133  '^ote 

12:4,  15,  16,  19 134 

12  : 6 131 

12  :  7,  12,  13 97 

12  : 8 S3.  90>  108 

12:8-11 117 

12:9 218 

12:10 no,  114,  183 

12  :  II 53,  107,  120,  192  195 

12:11-13 114 

(323) 


324  INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


12:17 


:i8. 
:i9 


PAGE 

:i2 no,  112  bis,   1.VI,  134 

note,   135,  160 

:i2f 122,  147 

:  12,  23 120 

:i2,  29 113 

:i3 iM,  M5,  192 

:i4 "4.  115,  120,  133 

:M,  17 131 

:  14-20.  ...88,  90,  90  note,  109, 

114,  115,  117,  140 

:  15 9^^,  108,  114,  120,  200 

:  15-ao 103 

:  16 104  bis,  131,  217,  226, 

252,  266 
109,  no,  III,  114,  120, 

135  bts,  160 
94.  103,  144,  210,  211,  213 
106,  114,  120,  131,  132, 

160,  200 
20 96,  114,  131 

21 97.  14^,  195 

:  21-23 96 

21-27 88,96,  117 

22 loS,  no 

22  ^,  23 97 

23 96,  "3.  145,  192 

23,  27,  29 147 

24 133,  218 

24-27 95 

25,  2& 145 

25  ff 160 

27 97,  144,  14^,  192 

28..  88,g6bis,  118,  120,  135, 

137  no/e,   139  bis,   141 

29 'A   110,  144,  147 

29  ff 122 

29,  30 118 

29-42 

31 

31-13 113 

31,42 

34-36 

34,  39 9^,  107,  108 

35,  36 

37 120, 

37  <» 118,  120 

37^  38 118 

.38 146 

.39 53,  118,  120 

4" 144 

40,  41 118 

4'>-42 90  note 

41.. 1 14, 115, 119,  i35*'".y,  160,  206 

4»,  51 no 

42 90.  92,  114  bis,   118,  227 

43 131 


88 
112 
118 
no 
118 

"5 
119 
146 


PAGE 

12  :  43-49 90  note,  95,  106,  iiS 

12  :  43-50 1^7 

12  :  43-51 45,  89 

12:44 W-i 

12:46 (5 

12  :  48 228,  267 

12:48,  49 95,  132,  16. 

12  :  50 135,  137  note,  139,  140 

12  :  50,  51 90  nott' 

12  :  51 119,  135  bis,  iCo 

ch.  13 92,  94,  95,  103,  171,  217 

13:1,  2 89 

13  : 1-16 90,  90  note 

13:2 95,  135 

13:3 144 

13:3,  4 209 

13:3-6 98 

13  •■  3-10 45,  89,  103,  181,  184 

13:3,  T4 145 

13:3,  14,  16 147 

13  :  3-16 117,  i6i 

13  : 4 94,  I  ^o,  144,  206 

13  :  5 145  (4  times),  160 

13  : 6 91,  104,  215,  216,  252 

7 146 

9 

9,  10 


13: 
13: 
13; 
13: 
13: 
13: 
13: 
13: 
13: 
13: 
13  : 
14: 
16: 
16: 
16: 
16: 
16: 
17: 
ch. 
19: 
ch. 
ch. 
20  : 
20  : 
20  : 

20  : 
ch. 

21  : 

21  : 

22  : 
22  : 
22  : 


147,  161 

....  161 

....  145 

...  89 

....  160 

. . . .  95 

■•  145 

160 

120 

135 


11-16 

12 , 

^2,  13 

14 

15 135,  144 

17 

18 

19,  20 135 

16,  18 133  note,   134 

23 270 

23  ff 104 

34  137  note 

36 254  note 

1 131 

19-24 66 

7.8 97  note 

20  i68,  169 

20-24 T7 

2 14.S,  197 

24 223,  306 

24,25 18,  33 

25 34 

21-23 * 165,  168 

13,14 18 

H- 33 

5,6 18 

29 18 

29  f 104 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


PAGE 

22  :  30 19,  24,  180,  188 

ch,  23...  165-168,  170,  182,  196, 

20s,  207,  209,  231,  232,  247, 
273,  274,  282,  287*,  289,  298,  305 

23  :  10,  II 18 

23  :  14 144,  182 

23:14-19 46 

23  :  15. . . .  91,  104,  157,  167,  180, 

182,  195,  206,  244 

23  :  i5»  16 244 

23  :  16. .  18,  66,  74,  160  note,  182, 

186,  243,  24s,  246,  258,  279 

23:17 182 

23  :  17-19 167,  182,  184 

23  :  18 91,  115,  182,  219 

23  :  19 oo^  182,  223,  272 

24  :  4 158 

ch.  25-40 17 

ch.  32-34 17 

32  :  15 •  •  •  270 

ch.  34 18,  165-170,  182,  196, 

205, 207, 209,  231  f,  247, 273  f , 

282,  288  f ,  298,  305 

34  : 1 169 

34  :  4 T3T  note 

34:9,  10 170 

34:iiff 167 

34  :  14-26 168  note 

34:18....  91,  144,  157,  167,  181, 

183,  195,  206,  244  bis,  245 

34  :  18-20 104 

34  :  18-26 46 

34  :  19-21 244  <?/j,- 

34  :  22. . .  160  note,  2J3-245,  258, 

279,  287,  307 

34  :  25 9i>  98,  115,  181,  183 

34  :  26 223,  272 

34  :  27 158,  169 

34:28 169 

35  :  2 270 

35  :2f 104 

35:3 131 

38  :  22     137  note 

39  : 1,  5,  etc 137  note 

39:32.. 138 

39  :  32,  43 137  note 

39  :  42 137  note 

39:42,  43 139 

40  :  16 137  jiote,  138,  139 

40  :  19,  21,  etc 137  note 

LEVITICUS. 

ch.  T-7 174 

2:11 199 

2  :  12  199 

2:14 199 


PAGE 
3:17 131 

4  :  15 146 

7  :26 131 

7:38 1,6 

ch.  8-10 174 

8:4 137  note 

8  :  9,  13,  etc 137  7tote 

8  :  22  ff 200 

8  ;  36 137  note 

9:1 146 

9  :  10 137  note 

ch.  11-16 174 

12  :  3 213 

ch.  16 158,  262 

16  :  31 270 

16  :  34 137  tiote 

ch.  17-20 176 

ch.  17-26 176 

ch.  18-20 176 

ch.  18-23,  25,  26 176 

19:2 174 

19  : 9,  10 264 

22  :25.... 132 

ch.  23...  46,  144,  158,   165,  171, 

174, 181,  185,  226  f,  236,  260  f, 

263,  272  f,  283 

ch.  23,  24,  25,  26 176 

23:1,  9,  23,  33 295 

23  :  2 295 

23:2,  3 293 

23  : 3 270,  293 

23  :  3,  14,  21,  31 131 

23  : 4,  37,  38,  44 294,  295 

23:5 267 

23  :  5,  6 211 

23  :  5-8,  14  ^ 294 

23:6 211,  267 

23  :  7 104,  270 

23:7,  8 217 

23  :  8 266,  2  o 

23:9ff 186 

23  : 9,  10 253  note,  263 

23  :9-i4rtr 2';4 

23  :  9-14   201 

23  : 9-22 260,  262,  293 

23  :  10 199,  246,  261 

23  :  10,  11 254  note 

23  :  11 104,  270,  271 

23  :  14 199,  265,  267 

23  :  14,  21,  28-30 135  note,  136 

23  :  15 260 

23  :  15  ff 264 

23:15,  16 263 

23  :  15 a,  16^,  21 294 

23  :  15  d,  16  ^,  20 294 

23  :  16 261,  272,  281 


326 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


PACK 

33  :  17     199)  246,  254  note 

23  :  18,  19,  32 293 

2.1:22 26^,  294 

23  :  23-32 293 

a.i :  23-36 294 

33:34.  39 270 

23  :32 269 

23  :  34 298 

23  :  ,V4  ff 391 

23  :  .V4-36 300 

J  3  :  36 214,  226,  298 

23:36,39 291 

23:37,3s 293 

23  :  38 220,  302 

23  :  39 297,  298,  299 

23:39,  41 73,  281 

23  :  39,  43  299 

23  :  39-43 293,  294  <^/j 

23  :  39-44 293  ^/j 

23:40 300,  302 

23:41 297 

23:42 299 

33:43 284 

24  :  2j 137  note 

di.  25 263 

25:1 156 

25  :i.  2 263 

25  :  2,  4,  6,  8 270 

25:5 270 

25:8 263 

25  : 9,  10,  22 160  note 

25:16 133 

ch.  26 175 

26  :  34,  3-S,  43 270 

26  :  46 156 

27  :  16 133 

27:23 133 

27:34 156 

NUMBKRS. 
ch.  l-IO 17 

'  :i9 137  "otc 

1  :54 137  "ofe,  \v) 

2  :3.3 137  "'Ji<: 

2  :  3» 137  "ote,  139 

3  :  13 104,  110,  120,  160 

3  :  42,  51 137  fwte 

4  :  49 137  note 

5:4 12,1  »o/e,  139 

** :  3-    137  note 

8  :  17 104,  II 1,  ijo,  160 

5:*^ 12,1  note,  139 

'*:22 121  note 

ch.  9 181,  i8>; 

9:»ff 158,  178 

9:>-M ...    165 


PAGE 

9:5 izi  note 

9:5-14 46 

9:" 232 

9:11,  12,  14 158 

9:17 ^i:s 

10:11 185 

11  :2i 146 

14:8 145 

14:28 145 

ch.  15-19 17 

15:36 TZinote 

17:" izinote,  139 

18  :  17,  18 202 

20  : 9 137  note 

20  :  27 137  note 

ch.  25-36 17 

26  :  54 133 

27  :  7,  8 161 

27  :  22 137  note 

ch.  28..172,  181,  1S5,  220,  226, 

235  f,  272  f 
ch.  28,  29. .  46, 144, 165,  177,  207, 

263,  283,  299 

28  :  16,  17 211,  274 

28  :  17  211 

28:18,25 217 

28  :  19  ff  190 

28  :  26. . ,  243,  260,  264,  272,  281,  282 

28  :  35 214 

29  :  12  ff 291,  298 

29  :  35 226,  291,  292 

29  :  39 190,  220,  302 

31  : 7,  41.  47 137  note 

31:28,  37-41..  .    13^ 

31:31 X2nnvt,' 

3.3:3 no,  268,  369 

33:4 120,  T34«<?/^ 

33:5 120 

33:17 131 

33:44 146 

ch.  34,  35 146 

35  : 1 156 

35  :  29 131 

36  :  10 137  110! e 

36  :  13 156 

DEUTERONOMY. 

ch.  5 168 

5:15 47 

5  :  23 97  note 

12  : 1-8 20 

12:5   34 

12  :8f 179 

i2:9f 34 

12:15,  21 23 

12:19 23 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


327 


PAGE 

14  :  23 2S4 

14  :  23-26 24 

15  :  19,  20 24,  104,  202 

15  :  20 184 

cli.  16 54,  178,  209,  217,  232, 

247,  282  f ,  302 

16  : 1 104,  115,  143  f,  206,  22S 

16:1,2 185 

16:1,3,8 ic6 

16  : 1-8 159,   181 

16:1-17 46 

16:2 103,  190 

i6:2ff 213 

16  : 3 195,  200 

16:4,  8 211 

16 : 7 94,  212,  214  f ,  219 

16:7,  8 105 

16  : 8  •• 226,  252 

16 : 9 186,  201,  271 

16  : 9,  10 246,  258 

16 :  10 243,  272 

16 :  12 257 

16:13 279,  299 

16  :  14 284 

16:16 306 

18:6-8 23 

24  : 8 179 

26  : 5-10 280 

26  : 8-10 197 

27:5,6 34 

31:9,  24 159 

32  :  14 183  note 

32  :48 135  note,  136 

34  : 9 137  nole 

JOSHUA. 

I  :  15 268 

3:15 267 

5:1 268 

5  :  10 230 

5:11 135  f,  X99,  267,  269  f 

10  :  27 136 

10  :  28  ff 134 

10  :  40 137  note 

n  :ii 134 

11  :  IS 137  note 

14  : 5 137  note 

18:1 35,  308 

19  :  SI  •  •  • .     35 

21:8 137  ?iote 

z\v.'2'2 3S 

24  :  5  ff 197 

24:17 145 

JUDGES. 
2:1 197 

6  : 8  ff 197 


PAGE 
6:19     199 

9  :  9,  13 307 

9  :  27 225,  2S4,  306 

18  :  31 35,  308 

19  :  18   35,  30S 

20:28 38 

21  :  12,  24 309 

21  :  19 35,  65,  307,  314 

21:21 z  ') 

RUTH. 

2:14 199 

1  SAMUEL. 

1:3 36,  65,    307 

I  :  3  ff 314 

I  :4ff 219 

I  :  20 307 

1  :24 36 

2  :  14 36,  230,  3C58 

2  :is 218 

2:22. 36,  308 

2  :  27-29 308 

2  :  28,  29 36 

2  :  32 319 

4:4 36 

6:17 319 

6  :2o 319 

7:9 319 

8:4,7 97 

10  : 3 319 

10:8 319 

11  :i5 319 

16:2 319 

16 :  16  ff 315 

30  :  16 281 

2  SAMUEL. 

1:17 315 

3  :  10 161 

5:1,  3 c)-]  71  ate 

6  :  15 320 

7:6 311 

II  :  I 160  fiote 

17  : 4,  14,  15 97  note 

19  :  II,  14 97  note 

ch.  22 315 

ch.  23 315 

23:1 315 

I   KINGS. 

3:2 37 

5:3-5 311 

6:1,  38 142 

6  :  38 290 

8  : 1,  5,  9,  etc 310 

8:2 73,  142,  232,  281,  290,  315 


32S 


INDEX  OF  SCRIP  TURF.  PASSAGES. 


PAGE 

:S 302.  309 

:  16-21 37 

:2ori 3" 

:  6J-64 302 

:6v •••••••  309 

:65 73,  247,  281,  266,  290 

:66.   -^92 

:  25 273 

:4.  7 

:7.8 

:  16 

:26ff 


3,^2 

37 

215 

313 

:  ^S. 197 

:  32. . . .  73,  225,  281,  287,  290,  315 

:.12,  33 232 

:23 37,  312 

:  26 191 

:30 320 

:  10,  14 37 

:  14.   320 

:i5 314 

:  22,  26 160  Jiote 

:  1 1 97  note 

2    KINGS. 

3:2f,  13 314 

4  :  23. 65 

8  :  13 314 

10 :  20 227 

12  :  16 275  note 

16:3. 161 

22  : 3 160 

ch.  23 232 

23  : 1,  2 97  note 

23  : 9 54  */-y 

23  :  21,  22 228,  232 

23:21-23 231 

23 :  22 54,  229 

23  :  33 160 


I   CHRONICLKS. 


11  : 1,  3. 
16:7... 
23:3i-. 


97  note 
...  232 
...     65 


2  CHRONICLES. 


3.... 
41  (T. 
8,9 
9.... 
10.., 


73 

320 

73 

292 

281 

8:12,  13 273 

8:13 230 

xo:  16 21s 

15:10,  12 258 

39  '  2i-.?4 2;5  note 


I'AGK 

29  :  30 232 

ch.  30 229,  230 

30  :  10 230 

30  :i5 232 

3o:i6f 217 

30  :  23 247 

30  :  26 230 

35  :  I 232 

35:7-9 185,  190 

35:11 217 

35  :  13  218 

35:18 230 

EZRA. 

3:4 300 

3:4,5    302 

6:  igff 231 

NEHEMIAH. 

3  :  10-12 302 

8  :  14 73,  281 

8:15 300 

8:17 293,  300 

8:18 292 

PSALMS. 
18 315 

40  : 6 275  note 

42  : 4 227 

63:5 183  «^/^ 

81 232 

81:3 73 

81:3-5 233 

8i :  16 183  note 

95:" 47 

104:14,  15 279 

132 37 

132  : 8 320 

ISAIAH. 

I  :i2 316 

1:13 226 

2:3 316 

4:5 226,  316 

8:18 310 

10:32 316 

11:15,  16 197 

18:7 316 

24  :  23 316 

25  : 6 316 

26  : 1 316 

27  :  13 "16 

39 : 1 65,  226,  316 

30  :  39 65,  115,  227,  3.5  i 

31:4,  5,  9 316 

31:5     192,     21i8 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


329 


PAGE 

33 :  20 227,  316 

37  :  30 160  note 

53  :  10 275  note 

JEREMIAH. 

31:38-40 237 

.33:11 315 

36  :  22 160  note 

EZEKIEL. 

2:3 \zSnote 

'2\:'2 135  note 

34  : 3 183  ^ote 

40  : 1 135  note 

40  :  39 275 

45  :  18  ff 234 

45  :  20 264 

45:21 211,  274 

45:21-24 231 

45:25 73)  281 

HOSEA. 

2:11 65,  316 

2:13 314,   316 

3:5 314,   316 

4:8     275  note 

4:13,  15 316 

8:4 314 

8:5f 3H 

9:1 210 

io:5f 314 

10.5,  8 318 

10  : 8,  15 314,  316 

II :  1 197 

12  : 4 318 

12  : 9 301 

12:9,  13 .....197 

13 : 2 314 

13:4 197 

JOEL. 

1:14 227 

2:15 227 


PAGE 

AMOS. 
1:2 316 

2  :io 197 

3:1 ...  197 

3:14 316 

4:4 316 

5:4,  5 316 

5  :2i '. ..   227 

5:23  315 

6:5 315 

8:14 316 

ZECHARIAH. 
2:4 237 

MATTHEW. 

17:1 213 

26:17 212 

28  : 1 271 

MARK. 
9:2 213 

LUKE. 
6:1 265,   271 

9  :  28 213 

18  :  12 271 

JOHN. 

5  :i,  39 258 

7:37 281,  292 

II  :  49  ff 60 

18  :39 61 

20  :  26 213 

ACTS. 

12:2 60 

I   CORINTHIANS. 
5:8 20a 

JOSEPHUS. 

Antiq,  iii.  10,  6 243 

Antiq.  xiii.  8,  4 265 


^:a 


DATE  DUE 


i 


m 


m&. 


'^^^r 


1 

f 


miMTCO  IN  U.S.A. 


l^^^ 


J.      .J.^^     .    „,^-. 


